Posts made by Trenacker

Anyway, if folks are interested in joining the development team, I could use the help.

Would a moderator remind removing the other thread? I wasn’t able to attach the files and had to link them instead, but apparently it posted in spite of telling me otherwise. Apologies.

This is an update on a project I began some time ago, Axis & Allies: World at War.

The goal is to create a single, custom game map, ruleset, and playset for use in private games. In short, creating an Axis & Allies variant similar to Global War, but without the intent to mass produce or sell the product commercially. This means that I will engage a professional mapmaker to create a high-quality play mat and play aids (e.g., charts, roundels, cards, etc.).

In terms of mechanics, this will be a card-driven game like Amateurs to Arms and Mr. Madison’s War bolted onto the Axis & Allies core rules. Basically, players will draw from decks of cards that set global conditions, activate neutral nations, and let them activate units in given territories. Rather than being able to move all units every turn, players will spend Operations Points to move specific armies. Additional Operations Points can be obtained through card play, from possession of strategic resources, and by building and placing supply columns. The latter are units that move along with armies, allowing the player to activate that stack every turn for free. They may, however, be captured by the enemy.

The game will feature both territories and point-to-point movement. Possession of a given number of points within a given territory translates to ownership, which yields a production value in IPCs. The game pieces will be a mixture of plastic pieces and traditional counters.

We will use an alternate history to bring all corners of the map into play. The map is inspired by both Harry Turtledove’s Great War series and an alternate history saga known as The Feast of Eagles, which imagined a world in which Europe remained largely divided after the Wars of Religion. The major conflict in North America is between the United States and the Confederate States. In South America, Argentina squares off in a naval race with Portugal, which retains its Brazilian colony. In Europe, a Franco-Russian alliance is opposed by the British and the Austrians. Minor powers include Castille (British-allied), the Two Sicilies (French-allied), Poland (allied with Sweden), and a restored Byzantine Empire. At the onset of the twentieth century, the French also dammed the Mediterranean, flooding the Lake Chad Basin. A similar project was undertaken in the Congo. Along with the Great Lakes, both African “world lakes” are accessible by a new canal infrastructure that admits oceangoing vessels. Japan squares off in the Far East against an ascendant Russia, a China of dubious strength, and the United Netherlands, not to mention the British.

At this point, I have a notional set of units. Here is the link for that. I’d love for somebody to review it with an eye toward optimization of unit buys and capabilities. Which units won’t ever get built or used?

The map can be be found here. Please ignore the ahistorical continent on the right side of the map. That was for a different game. I also have a much more detailed map with the point grid, but I think this is a good start to generate discussion.

This is an update on a project I began some time ago, Axis & Allies: World at War.

The goal is to create a single, custom game map, ruleset, and playset for use in private games. In short, creating an Axis & Allies variant similar to Global War, but without the intent to mass produce or sell the product commercially. This means that I will engage a professional mapmaker to create a high-quality play mat and play aids (e.g., charts, roundels, cards, etc.).

In terms of mechanics, this will be a card-driven game like Amateurs to Arms and Mr. Madison’s War bolted onto the Axis & Allies core rules. Basically, players will draw from decks of cards that set global conditions, activate neutral nations, and let them activate units in given territories. Rather than being able to move all units every turn, players will spend Operations Points to move specific armies. Additional Operations Points can be obtained through card play, from possession of strategic resources, and by building and placing supply columns. The latter are units that move along with armies, allowing the player to activate that stack every turn for free. They may, however, be captured by the enemy.

The game will feature both territories and point-to-point movement. Possession of a given number of points within a given territory translates to ownership, which yields a production value in IPCs. The game pieces will be a mixture of plastic pieces and traditional counters.

We will use an alternate history to bring all corners of the map into play. The map is inspired by both Harry Turtledove’s Great War series and an alternate history saga known as The Feast of Eagles, which imagined a world in which Europe remained largely divided after the Wars of Religion. The major conflict in North America is between the United States and the Confederate States. In South America, Argentina squares off in a naval race with Portugal, which retains its Brazilian colony. In Europe, a Franco-Russian alliance is opposed by the British and the Austrians. Minor powers include Castille (British-allied), the Two Sicilies (French-allied), Poland (allied with Sweden), and a restored Byzantine Empire. At the onset of the twentieth century, the French also dammed the Mediterranean, flooding the Lake Chad Basin. A similar project was undertaken in the Congo. Along with the Great Lakes, both African “world lakes” are accessible by a new canal infrastructure that admits oceangoing vessels. Japan squares off in the Far East against an ascendant Russia, a China of dubious strength, and the United Netherlands, not to mention the British.

At this point, I have a notional set of units. Again, feedback would be excellent, especially by folks that are good at optimizing builds. Which proposed units are unlikely every to be built?
Axis and Allies Units.pdf

I’m looking for digital mapmakers and digital publishing enthusiasts to help me develop a new map and professional-looking set of rules for an Axis & Allies homebrew set of rules. Any takers?

I was able to obtain 3d-printed markers on shapeways. They are translucent plastic. Very small, but with good detail.

The Capital Set (all nations) is $25 USD and includes the following:

Germany - Reichstag Building
Japan - Imperial Palace
Italy - Coliseum

U.K. - Westminster Palace
U.S. - Capitol Building
U.S.S.R. - St. Basil’s Cathedral
FEC - Taj Mahal
ANZAC - Sydney Harbor Bridge
France - Eiffel Tower and Arc de Triomphe

When I bring them out for a game, folks are always impressed.

I could see doing that on a larger map, but I’m concerned that the current map is too small for that. Then again, the game includes air bases, so maybe naval bases/ports aren’t exactly out of the question. Either way, I like the specifics of your suggestion.

I’d love to have somebody to collaborate with. I encourage interested parties to contact me via PM.

Thanks for the feedback! Okay. Detail below.

The Setup

Most are probably familiar with the new HBG Global 1936 map. It adds terrain features, railroads, cities, and merchant shipping lanes as well as new Minor Powers like Poland.

I don’t know that I will use all of the terrain features, but it’s a possibility. I’ve already made peace with the bonus for defenders in cities. I also have plans to use the railroads for strategic movement. My current proposal is based on an old Xeno Games mechanic. Players draw on a pool of railway movement points during the Non-Combat Move Phase to increase the movement of land units between zones linked by a railway. Railways can be extended for 1 IPC per territory in which new track is laid.

Small wooden spars (the kind used to mark roads in Settlers of Catan) designate new track. I use another color to designate border changes on the map. I also lay down dice in cases where I want to modify the printed value of a territory or signal a value for new territories.

My theory for changing the number and income of Major and Minor Powers links to specific trends I’ve noticed in games played with my gaming group. Generally speaking, South America, the southern Pacific, Spain, and Portugal are ignored. For this reason, Portugal and Argentina appear as playable Minors. Portugal is given Brazil as a colonial territory to ensure that they collect enough income to be relevant.

Turkish neutrality and the inability of Italy to strike east early in the game mean that the Middle East only sees action in about half of all games played. For this reason, Greece is enlarged and introduced as a playable Minor.

I consistently find that Russia remains in a defensive posture during the early game. For that reason, I adopt the HBG approach of creating a third alliance bloc, the Comintern, which cooperates, yet also competes with, the Allies. At game start (late 1938), the Soviet player must decide whether to invade Finland, gird for war with Germany, or aggress against a weak Greece or China at the expense of future relations with the Allied powers (where public opinion may deny them access to Lend-Lease aid or delay war entry).

Because Japan is often played by a veteran who cuts through the Dutch and British Far East Command like a hot knife through butter, I amalgamated the Low Countries and made slight improvements to the Dutch forces in the Netherlands East Indies.

Technology rules are usually ignored because of the extent to which chance is involved. I opt for a system in which players may finance specific breakthroughs to be made over a defined period of time.

Politics and Diplomacy

I introduce a tracker for non-player Neutrals. The tracker is shaped like a triangle. Three spars radiate from as central point. If a marker is on that point, the country is a True Neutral. The marker can be moved in any of three directions, indicating growing levels of affinity for one of the three alliance blocs. At each level of affinity, the corresponding alliance bloc may interact with the Neutral in new ways, such as staging commerce raiders in its ports, gaining increased income from preferential trade agreements, or overflying its territory.

Influence is applied during a Diplomacy Phase, during which time players may negotiate specific deals of fixed terms and duration. They may also negotiate over the fate of particular territories. For instance, at game start, the French must decide whether to cede Saigon to Siam for a cash payment, while the Finns must make a similar decision with regard to the Karelian Isthmus.

Each Major and Minor Power starts with a number of Diplomacy Points that can be spent on influencing neutrals, purchasing event chits that can be played at a later time, or converted into cash to lubricate negotiations with other players.

New, cross-cutting National Objectives prevent players from attaining victory through diplomacy alone. Even allies may have slightly different, or contradictory, objectives, which complicates joint action.

There are new rules for Lend-Lease, and both the French and Dutch may purchase units and place units for Indochina and the NEI from the Western United States or Canada.

The United Kingdom and the British Far East Command are responsible for different theaters of war and, while allies, may not transfer units east or west, respectively, without ceding strategic and operational control. The Allied Powers must also decide whether to group under a joint ABDA Command. They gain efficiencies if they choose to do so but must then all sign off on a single course of action each turn.

New Combat System

I move to a d12 base and start some nations with units that cannot be rebuilt if lost (e.g., pre-dreadnaught battleships). For example, Argentina begins the game with capital ships, while lacking the industrial base requisite to build her own.

New units include armored cars, heavy artillery, self-propelled guns, transport aircraft (to deploy paratroopers), torpedo boat destroyers, auxiliary cruisers (commerce raiders), troopships (infantry-carrying transports), and coastal battleships.

Commanders are special units representing generals and admirals. They confer bonuses to units in the same territory. Commanders cannot be rebuilt if eliminated.

Nations that lack access to certain units (excepting infantry) may purchase these from Major Powers at a slightly increased price. This provides Major Powers with a means to earn additional income but may slow their own rearmament.

Players must deal with force limits corresponding to national manpower pools. Each nation has a pool of a different size. Only through possession of specific, non-national territories may players increase their pools.

When a player makes a combat movement into the same territory with land or sea units that started in different territories, that player (the attacker) may choose to add 1 to the to-hit value of one attacking unit. No matter how many units participate in the attack, this bonus is only granted once. This represents flank attacks, the element of surprise, and factors of morale.

Units that cannot trace an uninterrupted line back to friendly territory are considered out-of-supply. Units out of supply for more than one turn cannot attack. Units that defend at 3 or more are reduced to a defense of 2 or less.

A supply line is interdicted whenever a unit cannot trace a direct line through friendly or captured territory and open sea zones to friendly territory. Interdiction is triggered by the presence of enemy naval units, including submarines.

In cases where an enemy captures a territory astride a line of supply but does not occupy it with units, supply lines are still considered cut. (It is assumed that enemy partisans or garrison troops act to prevent the free movement of supplies.)

When surface warships are attacked by air units, all defending naval units suffer -2 to-hit unless a friendly Cruiser, Escort Carrier, Carrier, or Armored Carrier is present. (The carrier must not be damaged but does not need to be carrying any aircraft.)

I’ve been developing a new set of house rules for use with the HBG Global 1936 map.

Major changes include: the new map, a d12 combat system featuring many new units, an event chit pull, and a diplomacy system that involves bidding to influence the behaviors of neutral nations. I introduce a new mechanic relating to territorial capture (territories are always considered to have a token defense of territorials, even when there are no physical units present), a new mechanic related to naval combat (a “naval combat search” must be made before every naval combat to determine whether the opposing forces locate one another), and a new mechanic related to supply. Aircraft enhance odds on the combat search. They may also now scramble from aircraft carriers as well as air bases.

Allied forces may attack as well as defend together, although if moved already in the same round (with the player’s permission), they may not move again. There is also a Lend-Lease mechanic to simulate transfers of money and materiel between alliance partners and clients (e.g., U.S. and Allies; France and Greece; Germany and Portugal).

The game has also been expanded to introduce several new countries that “open” segments of the map that are often inactive. To this, I introduce some (minor) alternate history.

I have retained several of the innovations introduced by Will Henson, including the three different alliance blocs and fairly specific rules on who may declare war, and when.

I’ve added Portugal as an Axis power and given them Brazil for good measure (the idea is that it never gained independence). Portugal begins the game in poor shape financially. It is in a naval race with Argentina, which is a Neutral Power that can go either Axis or Allied.

Greece is an Allied power, and has achieved the Megali Idea. In other words, they own Constantinople, the Bosporus, the Ionian coast, and the northern Turkish coast as far as Trebizond. They also begin the game in dire financial straits. The question is whether they can dissuade the Russians from carving them up.

Sweden is granted Finland and the Baltic states. It is an Axis power that serves as a major new foe for Russia in the north. The idea is that Russia has many options. It can go northwest against Finland, west against Germany, southwest against Greece, south against Persia, and/or east against China and Japan.

The Dutch are joined with the Belgians and given a more substantial fleet. The idea is that the Dutch government was convinced to reinforce the NEI with a slightly more capable fleet.

I’d love some feedback and potential collaborative partners, so I welcome questions and/or responses.

I’m looking for folks interested in collaborating on a project to create an Axis & Allies variant, based on the Hasbro rules, but incorporating a new map and various additions. This would be something in the spirit of HBG’s 1939 Global War product.

Specifically, I am looking for at least two people. One person to help with rules development, and one person to develop the map, for which I presume we will want to use Photoshop.

In terms of how this project might be different from G1940, 2nd ed:

1. The new map will be larger than that published by HBG. The theme will be turning formerly minor powers into functionally playable nations that can add optional depth to the game by bringing more of the map into play (e.g., South America).

2. New minor powers, developed in the context of an alternate history. Portugal is turned into a playable minor by the preservation of her Brazilian colony. The Dutch and Belgians are merged so that the Dutch are more robust. The Greeks have succeeded in achieving the Megali Idea in Anatolia. Argentina and Siam are elevated to playable minors by division into a larger number of territories.

3. A new political system that allows players to attempt to influence neutral nations.

4. A Fall 1938 start date, at which only Japan, China, and Russia are at war. The French move before Germany and can opt to reinforce their defenses or attack in an attempt to enforce the terms of Versailles. The Russians have also delivered an ultimatum to the Finns.

5. A new combat odds system based on a d12.

6. A selection of new unit types, including paratroopers, air transports, and interbellum units. In some cases, players will begin the game with “legacy” assets (e.g., older battleships) that they may not actually build in-game. Minor powers may purchase certain types of naval and air units from major powers, at a premium.

7. Simultaneous turns, to speed gameplay.

8. New National Objectives that reward players for achieving particular goals, apart from occupation of Victory Cities.

9. New rules to address national defeat (e.g., activation of Vichy France).

10. New core concepts, including a “naval combat search” that simulates the difficulty of locating enemy fleets, as well as optional supply rules. Carrier-based fighters may now scramble to support combat in adjacent map spaces.

Please leave me a private message if interested.

The website tells me that I can no longer pre-order the map. Is that correct?

I begin by repeating myself: if adding units, add more territories. Given the current map (G40, 2nd edition), I honestly don’t see any room for additional units. More space would need to added to open up additional possibilities for strategic movement on the board. This would create a new problems of its own, which I address below, but it is the fundamental change to which I think one must commit when deciding to add more units.

So, the real question is: How to balance realism/plausibility with a desire on the part of some players to do “new stuff” with new mechanics. Several major challenges arise:

Are we looking at the operational or strategic level of warfare? Axis & Allies splits the difference for the sake of creating a reasonable fun gameplay experience. If each unit is an abstraction of actual forces, then:
Land units (mostly) represent armies or corps of infantry, and divisions of armor and artillery. A few odd units in places like Hong Kong and French Indo-China represent functionally independent divisional commands. I have heard some concern on these forums about artillery moving and attacking at the same time as other units. Some people think that artillery should fire first, as it does during a general advance on the battlefield. There have also been arguments that it should fire in defense. I think that the first argument is most-flawed. Because of the level of abstraction described above (typically at the corps and divisional levels), land combat in Axis & Allies represents strategic, campaign-level movement in a given region. It does not represent operational or tactical activity. Artillery should not be presented separately or be able to conduct discrete “fire missions.” In terms of using artillery on the defensive, I think the choice to do otherwise was dictated by use of the d6 standard. Infantry don’t gain a defense bonus from artillery because they would defend at 3, which would dramatically reduce the value of purchasing armor.

Air units usually represent full wings of fighters or bombers, but the Scramble rule is all about using them tactically. The chief problem with air units has to do with movement. They perform regular movement at one scale, and combat movement at another.

Naval units represent flotillas. Thus, each destroyer represents a group, and each capital ship, a squadron. Together, they form fleets. My only gripe about naval action is that the Cruiser and the Battleship are not sufficiently different. Let’s compare.

So what about the map?
My recommendation would be to increase the number of map spaces at the expense of realism. Each turn still represents about three months’ real time. Crossing the Atlantic would take 2 turns. Crossing the Pacific would take 3-4 turns. This would not be realistic, but it would create more opportunities for movement, blocking, and naval combat searches, which I think should be instituted. (I think that, before any naval combat, a die should be rolled to determine whether the searching fleets even find one another. This creates the possibility that attacks on enemy fleets will be foiled and tempts players into trying to “sneak” forces past the enemy.)

Air units should have different values for attacking other air units and then naval and land forces. Split the current tactical bomber into two units: a naval torpedo bomber that can select which naval units are hit and a dive bomber that is slightly cheaper, but optimized to hit land units.

Does the Cruiser have good value?

The value of a unit can be calculated by adding up its movement, attack, and defense values, expressed relative to its cost. Thus, a cruiser has value 8/12, or 2/3. That is, you get a .66 return on every IPC spent. A battleship has value 10/20, or 1/2, which is a .5 return on every IPC spent. However, it can survive an extra hit, which means that it is technically a 1 return on every IPC spent. The obvious cruiser alternative is more destroyers. A destroyer has value 6/8, or 3/4, meaning that there is a .75 return on every IPC spent before factoring in the benefit of its anti-submarine capabilities. Better, then, to buy destroyers or battleships every time, especially because one can buy 2 destroyers for every 1.5 cruisers. (I’m no math whiz, and I welcome alternative interpretations.)

One approach to improving the cruiser’s value would be, I think, to give it a small area-of-effect bonus against attacking aircraft, representing its role as an escort for the big battlewagons.

In terms of adding other units, I think Commerce Raiders would be useful only if more spaces were added to the game. The inclusion of trade routes in the new HBG 1936 edition may create space for such a unit. I like the idea of adding Destroyer Escorts to safeguard convoy zones and transports, but I think that kind of work can already be performed by the Destroyer. Torpedo boats would be an interesting addition, but their value is really in the Mediterranean, which would need to be expanded in space to enhance the value of maneuver. I’m also concerned that such small craft wouldn’t thrive against A&A air units, which are extraordinarily powerful against other units.

Battlecruisers are interesting but effectively pointless since they will not travel at 3. HBG has experimented with Coastal Battleships and Coastal Submarines for lesser powers, and I suppose these units might be worthwhile, but then only as part of the forces that smaller nations receive at game start and are compelled to use due to anemic budgets.

I play and I’m in Knoxville. Any interest in speaking further?

I want to add a Confederate States of America to the map, as well as making Argentina playable. I’d also like to add Portugal to the game.

Do we begin to get away from WWII? Yes. We are now straying perilously close to violation of Core Element #2, historical simulation.

I want to make the Mississippi and Yangtze navigable for small craft and ironclads. Also the Great Lakes.

I think the game could be further streamlined with the addition of more player aids and simultaneous turns for European and Pacific powers.

I think that new core gameplay mechanics can be added. They will succeed if they avoid infringing upon any of the core reasons that people play A&A.

For example, I think that it might be possible to add a Political Influence tracker that affects the behavior of neutrals (here, I am using that term broadly, to include countries such as Argentina, Spain, Finland, Romania, and Siam). The Political Influence tracker can be packaged as a separate play aid placed to one side of the map, or else printed somewhere on the edges of the map itself. This would be one use for chits.

I think that major railroads should be printed on the map. Plastic markers can be used to indicate when a rail line is either cut or extended.

Weather effects can be added for specific regions on the board. Possibly, players could roll before any naval engagement while the fleets do a “search.” Carriers might lend bonuses to find the enemy, representing their air groups.

I have opened my Airfix and find that, although the base/pedestal is shorter, the pieces are of a height with those produced by HBG. I’d feel comfortable using them on my board. My big concern is that the plastic is very soft, and some pieces so finely molded that you’re almost certainly looking at damage-in-storage, if not straight out of the box. They can also be a pain to cut cleanly from sprues, resulting in damaged to pieces during removal.

HaT pieces are in much harder plastic – so hard, it’s brittle. They are noticeably beefier than Airfix pieces in the same scale, but about as tall. I got a Serbian WW1 pack.

Waterloo 1815 miniatures in 1:72 scale are taller, also brittle, and beefier still, but are also acceptable. Sprues for special molds (e.g., machine gunners) are fiddly, creating risk of damage to pieces during clipping.

I think the key to modding A&A is that, no matter the design, you need to stay true to why people play this particular game.

First, they want to move little plastic men and roll dice. If there are chits, they must not represent units.

Second, they want to engage in at least a partial historical simulation. There’s a reason the game is “Axis & Allies,” not “Guys & Tanks.”

Third, they want to play a game of minimum complexity.

I am of the opinion that, for somebody who plays A&A, the question of how long is less important than how exhausting.

Any map I participated in designing would be larger than the original. It would also include a number of magnified “cut-outs” around the borders for those territories that tend to be jam-packed with units.

I know a great mapmaker. Maybe we can dragoon him.

There is a cost to play each of the cards. Generals remain on the table as 1/1/1 units. Cards are drawn both at the start of the game and at the start of each round of turns. Some cards are drawn from a general deck by the player whose turn it is. Other cards are drawn by each player from a deck specific to their country. Some cards, called Events, are played automatically. Some cards have triggers – conditions that must be met.

The Battlecruiser, built as a hunter-killer, is dramatically less useful if we’re talking about the original map, on which even Cruisers have limited utility due to the relatively short distances between continents. I’m also not sure the Commerce Raider/Auxiliary Cruiser is viable on such a board. Certainly the Torpedo Boat Destroyer and the Torpedo Bomber are not.

Possibly the Armored Carrier might have value, if somebody really wants to operate such a platform either independently, or integrated with a small(er) squadron.

Honestly, I don’t think that even the G1940 map from HBG is large enough to justify adding new units.

By the time we get to talking about a map with oceans that may take two or even three turns to cross, we run into the question of whether land and air combat are even working on the same timescale – they are not, really. However, I do want to see navigable rivers (Mississippi and Yangtze) and larger oceans, along with more “metropolitan” territories (e.g., National Capital Region) on future maps.

There are so many ideas, I don’t want to invest in developing full cards for them until they’re vetted.

And yes, the first thing to do probably would be to design a new map. Do you know of anybody who is interested in that sort of thing? I’m afraid I wouldn’t know where to start.

Yes, the Torpedo Squadrons were supposed to be generic. They are a general unit.

Basically, the player plays X IPC’s to play a card from their hand. If it’s a unit, that unit is placed during the deployment phase. If it is an action like Salvage, they get to do that once, unless otherwise specified. I have tried to cost out everything appropriately.