Posts made by Trenacker

No. I am referring to the list on the GoogeDrive to which I linked a few posts ago.

So… anybody? xD Is it that nobody’s had a chance to look, or nobody thinks it’s worthwhile?

You’ve got it. If the territory is “Washington, D.C.,” then we’re approximating the National Capital Region, for example. In terms of fortifications, a Civil War-era analogy would be the ring of defensive forts and strongpoints around the capital city, which extended as far south as Northern Virginia.

Also, has anyone gotten to take a gander at the card list yet?

Some pieces and counters out of Memoir 44 and Tides of Iron have proved inspiring, although both are tactical games.

I don’t think it can be overstated to what degree adding new units is superfluous. I think that needs to be accepted up front. The current games are really complete in themselves. Even cruisers are really unnecessary. Probably tac bombers too. What’s really missing are transport aircraft.

The HBG map does include city regions. For example, the island of Singapore.

I’m thinking of some of the maps already seen on TripleA.

Minefields are perhaps too much. I think cavalry are quite viable for a game that covers the WW1 or interwar eras.

In this case, enrichments and fortifications will mean a fortified territory or a trench network of very large scale. More like a series of forts and strongpoints.

@LHoffman:

Sure, I agree… I would say perhaps even tertiary theaters as opposed to secondary though. Axis & Allies does not have the scale to focus on third-rate theaters. Why would you have mounted cavalry in a given territory when you could more easily have a tank or mechanized infantry unit in the same place with better attack, defend and movement attributes?

I think it’s a question of placing horse cavalry in certain theaters at the start of the game. I agree that this is really viable only on the Global maps sold by HBG and the larger maps possible in TripleA.

@LHoffman:

The difference with self-propelled artillery is that it is easily distinguished from normal artillery: you simply add +1 to movement capability. Adding SPA also does not further complicate the game as engineers would. You would need a whole new set of rules for engineers.

Not that this is impossible to implement or wrong to attempt, my point is only that SPA is far more seamlessly integrated to existing play at the strategic level than engineers would be.

Sure, I would agree with that.

@LHoffman:

What would you intend for the role of engineers to be? Does having their presence imply the use of fortifications also? If so, we are not entirely on the same page of what level of customization we are talking about.

The other evening, I added Combat Engineers to my card list, with rules. They can clear the “minefields” improvement and also build both entrenchments and fortifications.

A lot of the secondary units offered by HBG, FMG, and other retailers are superfluous to the current game design and functionally redundant on the current maps. Their addition is also hampered by the d6 system. I’m envisioning something much larger, working with at least a d12, as well as a much larger map. My theory is that if people are willing to play a 10+ hour game, they will be willing to play a much longer one also.

Where can I learn more about their 1936 version?

Yeah. I’m waiting for the Italian trucks. Gosh darn it, I want those so badly. They’re on the silhouettes for Global 1940, but the Italian pieces OOB are German copies in dark brown.

Horse cavalry made an appearance for minor powers. I think it was certainly decisive in many of the secondary theaters.

I admit that the current set of units mostly accounts for all the strategic level considerations. Nonetheless, smaller “auxiliary” craft would still be neat. And combat engineers are no less tactical than, say, self-propelled artillery, which is a popular addition.

Thanks for the advice.

I think HBG’s been out of stock on the Italian pieces for about a month.

Is there a thread on which we can suggest new pieces? I think that horse cavalry, torpedo boats, and combat engineers are obvious next sculpts.

I’ve also picked up a copy of the old Civilization boardgame by Eagle Games, a well as some 1:72 pieces by HIT.

Anyway, more cards tonight.

I want the FMG Italians, but, as I said, I can’t seem to pay via Pay Pal. For some reason, that functionality isn’t there.

HBG has great stuff. I’m eager for them to get the expansion packs for 1939 Global back in stock.

I’m also eager to find some A&A Pacific 1st edition red Japanese infantry.

Yeah, I’m finding it a bit rough to manage with just a d6 and special abilities.

One issue is that a lot of cheap units can force re-rolls with their special ability. I think that there needs to be a “Rule of Three,” meaning that a player can’t use more than three re-rolls per combat. I got the idea from the HeroClix miniatures game.

I’m buying the 1939 Global map. I am curious to see all the new territories. I think I’ve been spoiled by TripleA, which has much larger maps, along with the ability to track a lot of variables without ever troubling the player.

As an aside, I can’t seem to complete a transaction of the FMG website, and they answer neither my e-mails nor my PMs. Anybody know how much longer until those pieces refresh in availability on HBG?

Currently building out the card list to which I linked earlier. Please let me know if you can’t access the file via the link (it should take you to my Google Drive).

I’d love some input.

One of the big problems that I’m running into is that it’s hard to introduce too many new units under the d6 structure. Obviously, d12 creates some good breathing room, while d20 gives you lots of good freedom.

I’m right now experimenting with giving some units d12 stats in the context of the d6 game.

Awesome deck! May I ask where you found it?

I think the idea is to begin at WW1 and see what happens if you just keep playing on a global scale.

Gameplay would be driven by specific objectives. Each nation would be seeking to complete mutually exclusive conquests. While political rules might create opportunities for lulls in the combat, it would remain a war game.

Players would progress along a large technology tree, ultimately ending up with the same technology used in a game of Global 1940.

Please click here to see the list of cards that I have begun to develop. (Open it using Excel so that the formatting is correct.)

Okay, so I managed to download Gimp. The trouble is that I’m not at all proficient, so if anybody knows of an excellent tutorial, I’m all ears. I’m away this coming week, but I’ll try to find some time in mid-September to brush up on my skills in the image editing department.

I’ve reached out to YG to inquire where he found the fonts that he used for his National Advantage cards.

I think that, in the context of a card deck, “National Advantages” are just a fixed set of potential capabilities that may be deployed by a given country (e.g., V-2 Rocket, Rasputitsa, etc.).

I’m honestly a huge fan of alternate history, although I’m talking mostly about affecting the neutrality of various minor nations, or else situations in which plausible actions are taken (I refer you back to the possibility for a more aggressive naval building program by the Dutch, for example, which would have somewhat improved their ability to defend the NEI). One good example of an alternate history event is, “White Russian Volunteers,” which stimulates the appearance of Russian exiles fighting on behalf of the Japanese against Russia.

I am trying to build a bit of a deck list, but it’s slow going. If anybody has any suggestions, I’m open to them.

I kind of want to add various rule changes to the exiting game. For example, I think that carriers should defend against air attackers at a 3 or less, rather than at a 2 or less.

First of all, many thanks to both of you for your replies. This is exactly the kind of feedback that I was seeking.

@LHoffman:

I would say that you have a pretty good format down for the cards. The design is pretty good considering the tools you had to work with, though I think they could use some refining with proper photo-editing software. I forget what YoungGrasshopper used for his. I do not have Photoshop or anything like it, so my resources are somewhat limited also.

This is one of my biggest concerns because it will dictate the extent to which I can do the work myself.

Is there anyone out there who can render an informed opinion on whether Photoshop is a must-have for this kind of work? PowerPoint 2013 has a lot of improved functionality over earlier versions, but because it isn’t made for photo editing, a lot of clumsy work-arounds are required to produce layered images.

One big question I have is how to deal with card backings. I know the old trick of printing out the two sides separately and gluing them together, but I’d prefer to print a single sheet, front and back.

Surely there must be a template out there, used to create cards for other games, that can help me size the cards properly?

@LHoffman:

I do not know how many card ‘types’ or categories you have, but those are always nice for organizational purposes. Not that these correspond exactly to what you have, but something like Special Ability/Tactics, Reinforcement, Redeployment or Supply/Monetary Bonus… those are just off the top of my head for possible different categories of cards. Either silhouettes or card colors could designate what kind of card it is. Ex: a commander image for tactics/ability, infantry image for reinforcement, truck image for supply… Whatever works best in the style that you like.

The idea is to have three sets of cards. One set is a general deck of cards that will be used in common by all the players. The second set is divided into multiple, smaller, national decks, one for each player-country in the game. Players will draw a hand of 5 cards, two from the general deck, and three from their respective national deck, at the start of the game. (If one player is representing multiple countries, they will draw full hands for each individual country, respectively.) Cards will indicate when they may be played. The third set of cards is the Event deck. One Event is drawn and played immediately prior to the start of each nation’s turn.

Beginning in the second round, players will draw one new card from both decks (two cards in total) at the start of each turn, first from the national deck, and then from the general deck. Players stop drawing when they a full hand of 7 cards and may not draw again until they have played one or more of those cards, reducing the size of their hand to 6 cards or fewer.

I do not know how many card ‘types’ or categories you have, but those are always nice for organizational purposes. Not that these correspond exactly to what you have, but something like Special Ability/Tactics, Reinforcement, Redeployment or Supply/Monetary Bonus… those are just off the top of my head for possible different categories of cards. Either silhouettes or card colors could designate what kind of card it is. Ex: a commander image for tactics/ability, infantry image for reinforcement, truck image for supply… Whatever works best in the style that you like.

In terms of categories, I think we can confirm:

• Units - Cards that allow a player to place special land, sea, or air units on the board during his or her Placement phase. Special units may be represented by special markers (e.g., slips of paper, coins placed beneath an OOB game piece) or by after-market pieces. Units are represented at the army corps, naval squadron, and air wing level.

• National Advantages - Cards that attempt to approximate conditions specific to each nation, including industrial capabilities, technological leads, doctrinal preferences, the actions or contributions of “minor” allies (e.g., Finland, Siam, etc.), and special military capabilities (e.g., access to colonial troops).

• Leaders - Cards representing various personalities with a decisive impact on each nation’s war effort, especially political and military leaders.

• Strategy & Tactics - Cards representing various doctrinal and logistical innovations that provide the player with advantages in combat and production.

• Events - Cards that deal with political events that could have changed the outcome of the war. For example: an aggressive naval building program by the Dutch, resulting in deployment of large cruisers to the NEI; the Rasputitsa in Western Russia; or the opening of a neutral port to Axis commerce raiders and submarines.

@LHoffman:

I think this aspect is actually more critical than it seems, in terms of implying both quality, uniqueness or standardization throughout your deck. YG used different text styles, roughly corresponding to the nation of focus, for the ‘title’ text on cards. I think these look pretty darn good.

I’d like to do the same. I’ll shoot YoungGrasshopper a PM and see if he will offer suggestions on where to find suitable fonts.

The flavor text – a little “factoid” providing background on each card – is a sticking point only because I think that every card already needs to include all the rules necessary to use it. This, combined with the need to include a decent-sized picture and all the other relevant information, leaves very little space for even a sentence or two of interesting information at the bottom. One option is to ditch the roundels in favor of identifying faction association on the backings of each card. Another is to use the stripes in the upper left-hand corners, or else just the colored borders of each card, to communicate information that would otherwise be presented as a silhouette elsewhere on the card itself.

Figuring out exactly how large these cards should be – that is, how much space I have to work with – will be critical.

@LHoffman:

I sort of touched on this above: I like the idea of giving individual flavor to each nation as much as possible. This may present tactical inequalities between powers, but that is something which will have to be mitigated through lots of playtesting or much contemplation. Probably both. I always say that I really liked the National Advantages found in the back of the rulebook of A&A Revised. These were purely nation-specific abilities based on generalized historical association. Many people disliked them because they were not scientific… meaning some countries would have clear, unearned and uncounterable advantages. Not everyone was on the same footing. I agree this can be a problem. So the challenge is to balance them as best as possible to give everyone an equal chance at victory.

I agree that the initial focus should be building something fun. We can then move progressively to balance it based on user feedback.

@LHoffman:

I like your list. Honestly, I have never considered the ‘cost’ aspect. Such that some cards may require IPCs to use the ability/unit. That could be important as a mitigating factor, such that not every ability is simply free.

Exactly. Limiting factors are hand size and cost-to-play. I have tried to keep the costs relatively low in order to encourage, say, use of the unit cards over the purchase of corresponding units already in the game. That is, cards are one way to get more “bang” from each IPC spent. Still, players will need to balance their priorities and bide their time.

In a first round, I plan to make full decks for the US, UK, FEC/ANZAC, China, France, Russia, Italy, Germany, and Japan. Each national deck will also cover contributions of “minor” allies. Thus, the Japanese deck will include cards relevant to Manchukuo and Siam. Some cards may need to be discarded during play. For example, the Japanese may be required to discard an unplayed card allowing it to place troops in Siam if an Event has already been played that causes Siam to remain “true” neutral or enter the Allied camp.

In a second round, I may make additional decks based on the Global 1914 map, with the intent of doing a play-through into the WW2 period. Thus, I’d need to add decks for the Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, Portuguese, and Spanish Empires. I’d love to see a custom map adding a Confederate States of America and the possibility of playing all of the ABC nations in South America, but I won’t hold my breath.

Cards are drawn face-down and viewed in secret by each player. Team members may display their cards to one another, but each player must play their own cards.

There is no limit to how many cards may be played in one turn. However, many cards will have a cost-to-play, and all will need to be played at specific times. With the exception of cards relating to defensive combat involving their own troops, players will be unable to play their own cards during someone else’s turn.

@CWO:

My guess is that the multiple letter colours are intended to reflect the colours of each nation’s flag, since the letter-colour schemes very from country to country.  I agree that it’s distracting and makes the cards hard to read.  Simple black lettering would be better.  Having roundels on the cards is more than enough for national identification purposes.

That is correct, and I will change the text back to a more agreeable color. Thanks much for the constructive criticism!

Next Steps

I will try to brainstorm a list of potential cards tonight and post for comment.

Argothir, I think that your point illustrates why cavalry are only likely to be useful in games using a d12 or d20 for combat.

Thanks so much!

Any thoughts on the cards themselves?

All of these considerations are valid, but cavalry remained an important combat arm in places where the front was not contiguous or where the combatants did not have access to aeroplanes in large numbers.

Cavalry made important contributions to the African and Middle Eastern theaters during the First World War. Cavalry units were also significant during the Russian Revolution, the Russo-Polish War, and the Chinese Civil War.

The problem is that, eventually, games become stale without updates. You may love a product, and house rules can extend its lifetime, but eventually, most people tire of the experience, even if it was originally a lot of fun.

Joining a community centered around a dying game also involves a leap of faith by newcomers. You not only invest in a group of people that could soon disappear, but buy a product that may not have a future for the same reasons.

I do think that companies like HBG and FMG can be a powerful force that give the equivalent of temporary life support to these kinds of games, but even they are dependent upon replacement of the player base to ensure continued sales. Even if they expand beyond A&A, they will face the same problem as WoTC: investing new dollars in old games isn’t as lucrative as investing them in better-selling properties.

Consider that the current public fascination with board games will one day end, and that, even now, A&A doesn’t benefit as much as shorter games like Settlers of Catan.

One good option for A&A might be to move to a print-and-pay model. FMG has used this successfully to improve sales of its Game of Thrones board game. I suspect that HBG is also using this to figure out which potential products are going to generate good sales. Basically, customers pay for figures or materials that are either hosted digitally and released upon receipt of payment, or else manufactured and shipping directly to a home address. This cuts out the middle man, but it ensures that companies are not producing product that sits on the shelves. I think this is a good approach to expanding the basic game.