Posts made by Variable

@kcdzim:

@oztea:

I garuntee damaged carriers retured to port during WWII with some planes on board

Of course they did, but this is a simplified game.  If you want an element of reality to it make a house rule where some or all of your planes are on CAP, maybe even send them to adjacent sea zones declared during each turn, and then roll 1d6 per plane to land on a damaged carrier (a 6 ditches in ocean).

And while you’re at it, roll 1d6 after a sub strike to determine torp strike - 6 for critical hit - ammo magazine, all lost; 5 for rudder strike, steam in a circle, can’t move for a full turn; 4 for power loss, can only move one space at a time; 3 -1 for torpedo belt, land planes as noted above.

Or stop worrying about it cause your carrier will OCCASSIONALLY live slightly longer than before because it’s a minimal change.

Agreed. Like I said, I think overall this will add to the fun/challenge factor which, isn’t that what Larry was after? Making a more challenging A&A game for us? We should just say “Thank you Larry”.

Nah, that’s a stock photo from plasticsoldierreview.com

I would have +1ed you a bunch by now, but I can’t yet. So in the meantime, thank’s for all the great pics and review material. Makes me want my copy even more  8-)

@Veqryn:

@WILD:

As far as carriers go I agree with ksm. The way it played out in AA50 is once your carrier was hit it sunk, your planes had to find an alternate place to land. Its the same now except you have a chance to limp the carrier back and keep it. 
The 2 hit units are going to be bitter/sweat. This along with other changes/additions will make the naval battles much better and more realistic. Its adding a degree of logistics AA has been missing.

If they had of kept the price the same, I would agree with you…

but because they have upped the price, Carriers are much much less of a bargain, so much so that I think buying other naval units just became better.
The coolest thing to me about the prices from AA50, was that no matter how you cut it, whether offense or defense, a Carrier with 2 planes was more cost effective than purchasing the equivalent amount of other naval units.
Now that carriers jumped up in price, without adding ANYTHING tangible to offense or much to defense, a Carrier plus 2 planes is no longer the most cost effect route to go.

I can see the point here on both sides. However, by allowing us to keep the carrier after it’s been hit and repairing it for free, it actually frees up enough IPCs to buy bigger fleets. In AA50, if you lost the carrier and fighters you would want to replace them. Now, you still need to replace the fighters but purchase additional escort ships that you should have had in the first place. Bigger navies, bigger battles, bigger fun!

I’ll go ahead and add my version of the Paratrooper Rule:

Cost 4, Att 1, Def 1. Delivery method: Your choice, whatever you like best. LH rule is good (bomber drops one into first hostile zone), or many of the others here are great as well.

Here’s the kicker: Special ability- Match either 1-1 or 1-2 (haven’t play tested enough yet to decide) with DEFENDER’S UNITS, reducing the defender unit by 1 Def.

Example: 1 tank and 1 paratrooper attack 1 infantry and 1 tank. Attackers = 1@3 (tank) and 1@1 (para). Defenders = 1@2 (inf) and 1@2 (tank) instead of 1@3 (tank). If you decide to match 1-2, then defender would be 1@1 (inf) and 1@2 (tank)

Thoughts?

I’m in for as much as I can afford. At least 2 sets… Fantastic job guys. I know how tough it is to mould plastic and that is just AMAZING! You’ve got my money.

I was thinking about your IPC dilemma. What if all nations started with a set IPC income. Then, as territories are captured, the defender losses the income for the territory, but the attacker gains no benefit. This works better for your time scale and “flexible unit pool” ideas. Basically it would work the same as convoy zones in AAP. The motivation is still there for the attacker as you would be harming your opponent’s ability to mobilize new forces against you.

@Brain:

As far as developing a WWI game, Ithink I would like to try IL’s game first and see if it needs tweeking.
I am sure its a great game but it may be a little advanced for most AA players.

Yes, this is what I was saying at the beginning of the thread. I love IL’s game. I would just like a super simplified version you could work through in an evening with a noob. I would happily include IL’s version in my rotation for a weekend game. Plus, I was looking to do the game cheap. Reuse as many pieces as possible from A&A and get the rest in plastic. I will work more on this and share what I come up with.

@Bardoly:

Interesting thread.
An Axis and Allies-style “Dr. Pepper and Dorritos” World War I game would be great!
The key thing to remember, as was mentioned before, is to keep the game simple and not too time-consuming.

I have 2 proposed land/air units charts for consideration.

Chart 1 - a little cheaper IPC cost

Infantry  1-1-1-2 - Infantry troops were the main units of the war, I believe even more so than in World War II, so this justifies their reduced cost.  The infantry were not extremely effective though, so I dropped their defense to 1.

Cavalry   1-1-2-3 - No blitzing and no special attack rules for simplicity’s sake.

Artillery   2-2-1-4 - Use the “Surprise Strike” rule from AA50, they get preemptive shots every round, but this can be nullified by the enemy having a fighter in the battle.  They do not increase infantry units attack.

Fighter    2-2-3-6 - No special rules other than that they nullify the artillery’s preemptive shot.  After a map is made up, then we can decide if 3 movement is too little.

Zeppelin  1-1-6-10- No special rules.  Actually I don’t know a lot about Zeppelins, so I bow to y’alls knowledge in this area.

Chart 2 - a more comparable to regular Axis and Allies IPC cost

Infantry  1-2-1-3 - No special rules.

Cavalry   2-1-2-4 - No blitzing and no special attack rules for simplicity’s sake.

Artillery   2-2-1-5 - Use the “Surprise Strike” rule from AA50, they get preemptive shots every round, but this can be nullified by the enemy having a fighter in the battle.  They do not increase infantry units attack.

Fighter    3-3-3-8 - No special rules other than that they nullify the artillery’s preemptive shot.  After a map is made up, then we can decide if 3 movement is too little.

Zeppelin  1-1-6-10- No special rules.  Actually I don’t know a lot about Zeppelins, so I bow to y’alls knowledge in this area.

For aa and tanks, I agree with the majority that they should both be technological advances.

WOW! You’ve made it really hard to choose… I think I actually like the cheaper version so we can have bigger battles. Maybe limit battles to two rounds simulating bog down? We can discuss specific combat rules later.

On the cheaper chart, I think we should still go 4-1-1-6 for tanks as they were expensive to produce even after the tech was achieved.

@Brain:

If we take away the blitz property and yet still allow a movement of 2. Are you saying that the cavalry can move through 2 friendly territories, but cannot move through 2 unoccupied enemy territories and would instead have to stop to occupy the first territory even though there are no enemy forces present?

Correct. Simulates mobility but keeps them cheap.

Infantry  1-2-1-3
Cavalry  1-1-2-4 - Lets take out the blitz, but still have 2mp. I would like to promote a balanced force. Have them attack at a 2 for the first  round to simulate a charge. 1 after that.
Artillery  2-2-1-5 - Lets go with Emperor Taiki’s idea of 5IPC. They should get special opening fire (no return fire), but normal on 2nd round etc.
Fighter    3-3-3-8 - Lets keep this and eliminate “spotting”. The higher att/def values should simply reflect this. Keep it simple.
Zeppelin  1-1-6-10- 8 seems too far for the scale.

My input here will remain simple.

For the map:
Lets do Europe with a special section for the western front. If we change the scale for the front, it eliminates the need for special trenching rules unless that’s what everyone wants. Then we need North Africa and the Middle East. Obviously, we need to include all of Turkey and the rest of the Ottoman empire that borders Russia. Lets skip the US and Pacific, as I don’t feel its necessary for game play. We can put a generic box on the map for US involvement or have transports show up on turn X. Think AAEurope map expanded out a bit further to the East and South.

For the pieces, here’s what we have so far. I changed the colors to match A&A because you never know what other variants we will want to make. Also, we can use current A&A pieces for techs. Remember, think simple, think budget:
Entente:
UK - tan
Russia - maroon
France - blue
Italy - brown

Centrals:
Germany - grey
Austria - olive green
Ottoman Empire- orange

Units:
Infantry
Cavalry
Tanks
Artillery

Bi-planes
Zepplins

Dreadnoughts( this term refers to both battleships and battlecrusiers)
Light Cruisers
Destroyers
Trannies
subs
Sea Mines( AA guns were not a very important part of WW1, but perhaps sea mines which were an important part could be added and work in a simailr way)

I think IL is on the right track. Trouble is, with all of the different countries and units in his version, it’s going to cost a fortune to build it. What we need is a true “beer and pretzel version” for up to 6 or 8 people that is no deeper than AA50 in content. Then we need someone to step up and build a complete set of plastic minis that are at least “good enough” in about 8 colors for say $50-60.

But you’re right, I’m not sure enough people care. I know IL would make a map of whatever we want. He’s just good like that. We could come up with a simple set of rules based on Triple A and IL’s set. All that hard work is done. I would just like to see a simple 8 color plastic set of:

Infantry
WWI tanks
Biplanes
Cavalry
Baloons/Zepplins
Artillery
Navy pieces (2-3 types to keep it easy)

Just need a bunch of each land unit for the zoomed in fronts. I liked that feature of TripleA as it “simulated” trenches - kinda.

@Krieghund:

If you want these games, get them while you can.  I wish I could be more helpful.

I think that’s pretty helpful and it answers my question. Just have to do it. You guys have any job openings? Employee discount?  :-D

… after we all get what we want for WWII of course. Just curious if we could get enough interest for FMG or someone else to produce a truly useful line of WWI pieces. We would need about 8 colors, right?

Thoughts?

EDIT: I renamed the topic for BrainD - good idea! Now, I don’t know as much about this war as most of you. But here’s what I want to accomplish: I like IL’s game, but it’s for more advanced players and those with bigger game budgets. My goal here would be to design an easy to play game based on AA50, with new pieces and a period correct map. Basically, it should end up fun and easy with the feel of WWI, but not so historically perfect that we get into the detail that IL has on “The Great War”.

To IL - Thank you a million times for all the hard work you put in on the Great War. I’ve downloaded everything and am in the process of building the game. I’m also on board to push Larry into making a true A&A style version of this war as well.

To BrainD - I’ve played the TripleA version a few times through. I like it ok, but found myself bored after a while. I don’t like the AI at all as it’s way too stupid (even on the “hard” setting) And like IL, it leaves a longing to touch real pieces and hang out and play with real people. Even if you pass the lap top to your buddies, it’s never as good as a true, tangible hard-copy you can put on the table and BS over. My $.02… :-)

After a quick look around the internet, the pricing on this game is definitely higher than I was hoping. I’m seeing $75-85 with a ton of shipping no doubt. So does that mean we’re in for two more “Limited Edition” games? I know the quality and size is higher than standard with it being on par to AA50, but $60 X 2 would have been easier to swallow than almost $200 for the new set.

Come on Krieg, what’s the story?

@Brain:

Cavalry could be 1-2-2-4 and could blitz.

…and could be used in IL’s Great War variant!  8-)

Mine was off too. I was short two British infantry and a German tank. But they put two extra German infantry in. A couple of parts from revised and I had a full card. Ended using special infantry to represent paratroopers.

Supremacy is a great game that dealt well with nukes. A bit expensive to buy now though…