Cold War: It's Finally Done
-
#9 Your wrong. there’s no other way to put it. You cant make baseless accusations with no actual evidence supporting your claim, if you actually want to be taken seriously.
-
#10 You would have to be more clear about that last one. I have no idea what your referring to
-
I didn’t say small islands are unimportant, just better to remove islands if there is no reasons to fight for them like new hebrides and fiji which surrounded by only one sea zone. One of them is redundant but might be reasons to fight for one of them only.
In a board game every piece of territory (even if worthless) and sea zones have a reason to be exist hence distortion becomes handy because having too much territory not always impact positively. For example if it was a WWII map, these extra sea zones between Britain and N.Africa would cripple torch option.
Its impossible to justify these values other than balance purpose. Western Germany has always been, more populated, industrialized and richer even if we assume its value decreased due to Allies bombing in WWII Western Germany was also richer in terms of steel and coal production.
Lybia wasn’t the leading nation in crude oil production either. They were USA, Soviet Union, Venezuela, Iran and Saudi Arabia the letter three deserve more value also.
-
@Navalland #1 If having multiple small territories in effectively that same area were redundant, then why would the professional game designers that made Axis & Allies 1940 2nd Ed include British Guiana, French Guiana, and Suriname?
-
@Navalland #2 They do have a reason. It is to prevent NATO from coming across the pacific and steamrolling china.
-
@Navalland #3 In the 90’s, this is 40 years of massive reindustrialization and financial aid mind you, West Germany was only a few million dollars richer then its Eastern counterpart. When this game begins, it is in shambles.
-
@Navalland #4 You’re right Lybia had no oil value, mostly because Lybia does not exist. If you meant Libya, then your right it wasnt a leading oil producer, hence the word, untapped. Secondly, of course the USA and the Soviet Union produced more because they are way bigger then Libya, and have more infrastructure. Iran owned effectively none of its oil. They were primarily owned by the Seven Sisters. Saudi Arabia didn’t start using its oil until much later in the cold war. And Venezuela didnt actually make that much oil compared to other countries. They just made a lot of money off of it when middle eastern countries began refusing to provide oil to us, causing the price of oil to skyrocket.
-
@Navalland And while I do appreciate your feedback, maybe next time your planning on criticising the work of three people who are working thanklessly on a super massive game for free distribution, without any hope of reward, you try and be a bit more polite, and possible take the time to use a spell check.
-
@Militarized-Milkmen
LOL! -
The board game designers in Avalon Hill are no better than most of custom game designers and their games are far from being perfect. Thye even totally gave Eastern Prussia to Russia an A&A 1914 which unhistorical and bad for playability for such a thing in main combat zone but nobody objected where is the New Zealand or Vladivostok.
Better map means giving the most strategic options to combatants with the least amount of territories as much as possible while achieving the war feeling. Redundant territories decrease strategic options not increase. Like how every pieces and territories have a reason to be exist in chess and backgammon this should be applied board war games too.Of course some areas and most of small islands should be worthless in terms of Pu but you need to give reasons for combatants to control these worthless areas. If there is no way to create a situation like this, they should be removed even there is nothing wrong to remove Madagascar, Corsica, Cyprus or even New Zealand in most of scenarios.
-
This post is deleted! -
@Navalland Just because a territory is 100% necessary doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be there. It does not detract from the map in any way and it provides more options to players.
-
Here are the updated rules. Much of the current map didn’t make sense with the old ones. I’m posting it as a google doc so that I don’t have to attack a million separate pdf files.
-
However, this will likely change as I am working to trim the rules down to a minimum. One thing that will likely be cut is vietnam being a neutral power. It effectively functioned as a subsidiary of china, however, not entirely, so I’m not quite sure. Also for legal reasons, the game is called arms race, not axis and allies, however, it is still an A&A game through and through.
-
Hey everyone, it’s me and I’m back to reawaken the drunken monster, if my own creation, that is this thread! cue booing
I have some updates to announce to everyone so I thought I might as well do it here, since I love being criticized and/or blatantly ignored!
Update #1: I’m sad to announce that national objectives will NOT be making their way into the core rules of this game. As they are traditionally, and would have been, entirely optional, I decided that they would be included in expansions that may be released in the future, when and if the community begins to take an interest in this game, or this thing ever gets off the ground. Which leads me to #2…
Update #2: Expansions are in the making! I am happy to announce that my team, (the two people generous enough to provide significant help) have been doing some work on planned expansions to enhance the game. Due to the level of work required for each of them, they include rules that were too optional to make it into the core set, but we’re still cool enough to have work put into them. Again as they are a lot of work, the team has decided to not devote serious effort into working on them unless we notice an uptick in community interest. Right now their just cool ideas were tossing around, but, as I said before, if you guys ask about 'em, we’ll do our best to make 'em happen. Things to look forward too: A more realistic (and destabilized) middle east and north africa, the Cuban missile crisis, UN security councils and more crazy ass diplomacy if you’re into that, awacs and other early warning systems, technology and hacking, and a realistic simulated economy! (I know @MonsieurMurdoch brought up another one in the making but I can’t remember what it was, maybe the space race?)
Update #3: Are you tired of playtesting this game with pieces from G40? Of course not, because only two people, including myself and my colleagues, have expressed any level of interest in playtesting! Well be annoyed no more, because yours truly, with the help of Historical Boardgaming, have been designing minatures, pieces and other shhhhiiii, er, stuff, (I’m trying not to curse to much in this post) specifically designed for this game! I’m talking historically accurate tanks, and actually mechanized infantry (not just that postal service van with treads the russians are using in g40)! However, I need your help! I know all of you will rip me to shreds, if I use units that weren’t significant, or common, or whatever, during 1955, so I will be releasing a list of what specific model of tank, fighter, etc. that I will be using to represent each country in just a minute, for people to criticize and comment on!
-
NATO
Mechanized Infantry: M59
Rocket Artillery: Douglas MGR-1 Honest John
Tank: M48 Patton
AA: MIM-3 Nike Ajax
Air Superiority Fighter: North American F-100 Super Sabre
Strike Fighter: Republic F-84 Thunderstreak
Bomber: Boeing B-52 Stratofortress
Transport: Raleigh-Class or maybe Austin-Class
Submarine: Tang-Class
Destroyer: Forrest Sherman-Class
Cruiser: Baltimore-Class
Aircraft Carrier: Forrestal-Class -
SEATO
Mechanized Infantry: Alvis Saracen
Rocket Artillery: Same as NATO
Tank: Same as NATO
AA: Same as NATO
Air Superiority Fighter: North American F-86 Sabre
Strike Fighter: Gloster Meteor F.8.
Bomber: English Electric Canberra B.2
Transport: Balikpapan-Class
Submarine: Porpoise-Class
Destroyer: Daring-Class
Cruiser: Dido-Class
Aircraft Carrier: Majestic-Class -
Pro-Capitalist Minor Powers
Mechanized Infantry: Same as SEATO
Rocket Artillery: Same as NATO
Tank: Same as NATO
AA: M42 ‘Duster’?
Air Superiority Fighter: DH-100 Vampire
Strike Fighter: DH-112 Venom
Bomber: Same as SEATO -
Warsaw Pact
Mechanized Infantry: BTR-152
Rocket Artillery: BM-24
Tank: T-55
AA: S-75 Desna
Air Superiority Fighter: MiG-19 ‘Farmer’
Strike Fighter: Sukhoi Su-7 ‘Fitter-A’
Bomber: Tupolev Tu-95 ‘Bear’
Transport: Tapir-Class
Submarine: Whiskey-Class
Destroyer: Kanin-Class
Cruiser: Sverdlov-Class
Aircraft Carrier: Kiev-Class -
Communist China
Mechanized Infantry: WZ-551
Rocket Artillery: Type 63
Tank: Type 59 (Rebranded T-55)
AA: Same as Warsaw Pact
Air Superiority Fighter: Shengyang J-6 (Rebranded MiG-19)
Strike Fighter: Nanchang Q-5
Bomber: Harbin H-5
Transport: Type 072
Submarine: Type 03 (Rebranded Whiskey-Class)
Destroyer: Anshan-Class
Cruiser: Same as Warsaw Pact
Aircraft Carrier: Same as Warsaw Pact
Suggested Topics
