I'll be checking in on this thread now and then and hope I can answer any questions you may have.
I would buy it so fast your head would spin.AC wrote:True. I would love to see Larry make it. Hopefully one day. I'll buy it in a second. That's one sale larry and I'm sure another from Yavid.
These books reflect the narrative history of the US Army, the internal struggles among the Allies for leadership and a clear strategy, character studies of principal commanders, and countless details that would give way to three tremendous A & A games. The author brings an exhaustive study of G.I.'s and their leaders at war.
There is probably no finer collection written of the war the Allies waged, that could serve as a historical foundation for a WWII campaign series of A & A games, than this trilogy.
Here are a few ideas that I would enjoy seeing incorporated in future games. Some, I'm sure have been suggested in the past, some maybe not; but regardless, I'll present them and wait for the synergy that surely follows from you and fellow gamers.
1. Optional solitaire rules for those that enjoy playing solo; or, a game exclusively designed for a single player.
2. All playing pieces are pre-painted (I call this "going through basic training" when I paint mine). Painted units add an appeal and realism to the game.
3. Casualties are determined by any method other than player's choice.
4. Everything possible is printed on the game board. For example, in Battle of the Bulge, Axis and Allied reinforcement cards would be printed on border of the game board instead of on separate cards.
5. No chips. There must be another more visually appealing way to increase unit capacities.
6. Finite number of unit purchases based on historical data. Here's a rough example: Germany can't field 100 infantry units during the course of the game if their population in WWII could really only produce 50.
7. Definite time frames with victory conditions tied to winning by 1945. If we're fighting WWII, do we really want to extend the war into the 1950s with unlimited turns?
8. Double-side boards reflecting different options such as summer on one side and winter on the other. Or an example I previously submitted: the city of Stalingrad on one side and if it's not captured in so many moves, flip it over to reveal a map that allows the Russians to surround the city.
9. Uniform size game boards whenever possible. When I go from 1942 to Europe 1940 I have to change tables. I realize the necessity for different sizes and that I'm being picky, but it's just a thought!
10. Perhaps fewer Victory Cities, but blowup maps for those remaining printed on the edge of the game board where the combat can be transferred for a tactical battle.
I realize in some cases I'm talking in circles, asking for standard size maps, but requesting everything be placed, whenever possible, on the game board. I also understand some of these ideas would affect the cost of the game. And others are probably thinking, "Why not just make some of these House Rules?" I would submit that at one time every rule was a House Rule (in Larry's house). But now these House Rules have been transformed into this wonderful series of games we all enjoy. For me, part of this hobby has always been thinking of ways to keep the games fresh and fun. I welcome others to join in.
Thanks again Larry for the opportunity you give us to express our views.
Battle of Stalingrad: 2 player game, Germany and Soviet Union; objective of Germany is to capture certain territories to win, object of Soviet Union is to remove all German units from the board; will feature all units from the 1942 games; map will stretch from the northern plains of stalingrad to the southern ones, western plains to western volga river; will use ww1 mechanics to represent the aspect that some battles are simply for single rooms in one building
Battle of Kursk: 2 player game, Germany and Soviet Union; objective of Germany is to encircle Kursk, objective of Soviet Union is to prevent this; all units from 1940 games, plus the addition of minefields, heavy tanks, and flamer thrower infantry; germany has a limited amount of units, while the soviets can produce, the soviets have terrible positions however, and must play carefully to win; map is simply the whole area involved in operation citadel (can't describe it entirely); a battle of moscow game would be the same concept with a differant map
I myself am developing a 1939 game, titled "The third reich and the rising sun", which is about the size of "the war game world war 2", and features a resource income system rather than IPCs, also involves a lot of units and combine arms with them, has a terrain system, 10-sided dice, and features 13 powers (germany, ussr, uk, japan, usa, poland, italy, france, canada, anzac, finland, china, holland), game has lots of political rules too, and has something similar to national objectives (I would talk more about it, but it would go on for ages, I would prefer to see Larry design a 1939 game, but I know it is hard to do so properly and still be simple enough)
Axis and Allies Eastern Europe with a huge board and new units like
Heavy tanks, Self-Propelled Artillery, Tank Destroyers, SS Units, Guards Units,
Romanian, Hungarian, Bulgarian and Italian Units. Different countries units have
different att/def move values. Supply system and city siege battles, actual fronts and terrain effects.
Vietnam - Vietcong, US, S.Vietnam, Helicopters, Rangers, Marines, Jets
Cold War Area - Communist Block vs. Nato
North Africa Campaign - Terrain effects mech units, afrika korps and Rommel!
Generals, scouts, Tobruk, Malta, Capture Egypt before the United States lands and
screws everything up. Supply system and leadership, varying unit strength necessary.
Invasion of Iraq - Missle launchers, cruise missles, Jets, Helicopters, Abrams battle
tanks, UK, USA, NATO, vs. Iraq. Must capture Baghdad before a certain round.
World War IIIChina, Russia, Iran, N. Korea vs. Japan, USA, S.Korea, Israel and NATO
Why does everyone always want to make the same old crappy WWIII scenario?turner wrote: World War IIIChina, Russia, Iran, N. Korea vs. Japan, USA, S.Korea, Israel and NATO
How about this:
The year is 2034, after a series of campaigns in Africa and the Middle East, the United States collapsed economically and politically, due to overspending their military and civil unrest had arisen thanks to the leadership of their Government. After successfully annexing Eastern Ukraine, Crimea, and Belarus, the Russian Federation formed an alliance with Congo, India, Argentina, Saudi Arabia, and Greece. Russia also established puppet states in Iraq and Afghanistan.
China has become an economic powerhouse prior in 2027, however the collapse of the United States has left many of it's people jobless, causing the country to be left in a state of disarray. In response, the Chinese had annexed Mongolia and Taiwan,
causing relations to spiral between China and the West to deteriorate.
Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and Italy have found the sudden rush in dominance of the Russian Federation to be highly dangerous, forcing themselves into an alliance (NATO dissolved after the USA ceased to exist), along with this, they have had negotiations with the Japanese government to provide an alternate route to eastern Russia, however the Japanese refused, thus Europe found itself alone.
The lands of the former United States had been annexed by many countries, the Russians had taken Alaska and Western United States, Canada taking the North, the European Union members splitting up the eastern states, and Mexico taking the South. Much of the equipment had been destroyed however, as a final desperate bid of the US government before it disappeared.
North Korea attempted a war in South Korea, the Russians were their ally, but despite this, the Chinese intervened and defeat North Korea, annexing it, to prevent China's sphere of influence from collapsing. Congo joined Russia's alliance in an attempt to gain supplies and resources, and provide itself as the dominant power in Africa, to overtake Egypt and South Africa's positions. Greece joined in contempt to Germany and the Western European nations. In 2029, Argentina and Brazil had gone to war, while Argentina was victorious, it's economy was severely damaged, and it joined Russia's alliance to gain security in South America. India's relationship with Russia, along with the promise of an invasion of Pakistan, provided India great reasons to join the alliance. Saudi Arabia, for the promise of the annihilation of Israel.
Finally, we again head to 2034, war has broken out when Russia invaded Western Ukraine, prompting Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and Italy to declare war, following suite, Poland, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Romania joined the European Alliance. Russia had begun an invasion of Pakistan along with India, and also one of Iran. The Japanese government will find it impossible to avoid war forever, and China finds the Russian threat much the same. This is war, and it's up to you to define history forever. You won't change history, you will make it.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests