In the 90’, I played a couple of Xeno game and with and without gamerparadise rules.
It was well balanced but not enough for me.
The rules are not bad but the gameboard is ugly.
Over the year me and my friend changes the rules and created our own map.
Cold War: It's Finally Done
-
@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 -
Pro-Communist Minor Powers
Mechanized Infantry: BTR-40? BTR-152?
Rocket Artillery: Same as Warsaw Pact
Tank: Same as Warsaw Pact? T-34?
AA: ZSU-57-2?
Air Superiority Fighter: Same as Warsaw Pact
Strike Fighter: Sukhoi SU-7 MK ‘Fitter-A’
Bomber: Ilyushin Il-28 ‘Beagle’ -
@Militarized-Milkmen said in Cold War: It's Finally Done:
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 RB-29 Stratofortress
Transport: Raleigh-Class or maybe Austin-Class
Submarine: Tang-Class
Destroyer: Forrest Sherman-Class
Cruiser: Baltimore-Class
Aircraft Carrier: Forrestal-ClassYou seem to have quite a few sculpt ideas, both this set and the following sets. I have some commentary (from the peanut gallery) on this set, if you please. While I agree in general that the more sculpts the better, I thought you might have overlooked some other options, which I think would be improvements over what you have gathered.
No comments, sound good:
Mechanized Infantry: M59
Rocket Artillery: Douglas MGR-1 Honest John
Tank: M48 Patton
AA: MIM-3 Nike Ajax
Transport: Raleigh-Class or maybe Austin-Class
Destroyer: Forrest Sherman-Class
Aircraft Carrier: Forrestal-ClassSome commentary
Bomber: Boeing RB-29 Stratofortress / B-47 or B-50
RB-29s were a photo-reconnaissance variant of the B-29 made from repurposed WW2-design B-29s. The post-war version of the B-29 were the B-50s, which were production copies of the “Silverplate” modified, nuclear capable B-29s. They are, admittedly, hard to tell apart from B-29s. B-47 jet bombers, on the other hand, were the first major jet bombers used by the Air Force and notably visually different from WW2 era bombers. I think that either B-47s or B-50s would be better than RB-29s.Submarine: Tang-Class / Skipjack
Skipjacks were the first production nuclear-powered subs with a hull design optimized for underwater speed (the very first production nuclear-powered subs, the Skates, were Tangs with nuclear-power). The rounded hull shape would be different from WW2 submarine designs.Cruiser: Baltimore-Class / Boston or Des Moines Classes
The Baltimore class was another WW2 design. After the war the Navy took two Baltimores and modified them to carry anti-aircraft missiles, making them the first class of missile-armed cruisers, the Boston class. If Bostons are a bridge too far, the ultimate gun-armed cruisers were the Des Moines class. I think that sculpts of either Bostons or Des Moines would be better than “more” Baltimores.Air Superiority Fighter: Republic F-86 Sabre
Strike Fighter: Republic F-84 Thunderstreak -
maybe F-84 Thunderjets, to be different from F-86s
F-84 Thunderstreaks look very much like like Sabre jets - single engine swept-wing jets. F-84 Thunderjets, on the other hand, have straight wings and would be much easier to tell apart from Sabre jets. Why are both called “F-84” when they look so different? Ask the Air Force, I don’t know. Some pictures to help show the differences.
Straight wing Thunderjets:
Sabres, with their swept-wings:
Swept-wing Thunderstreaks:
Just some thoughts of mine, likely worth every penny you paid for them.
-Midnight_Reaper
-
@Midnight_Reaper First of all, you are totally right about the b-29 thing! I really meant the b-52 stratofortess, I’m not sure how I got those two confused. I did think about using the B-47 Stratojet, mostly because HBG already has a mold for it, however, by 1955, when this game takes place, stratofortesses were already being introduce, and they emulate the heavy bomber vibe I was looking for. I’ll update the post right now.
-
@Midnight_Reaper Secondly, I am aware of the existence of nuclear powered shipjacks, however, in this game, you specifically have to research nuclear powered subs, so if NATO starts with a nuclear sub it wouldn’t make sense. Thanks for the thoughts though!
-
@Midnight_Reaper Lastly, on the subject of the sabre and the thunderstreak…
You make a decent point that they are similar, however, as NATO uses the super sabre as their air superiority fighter, which has a tailplane that is in line with the wings, I don’t think it will be too similar. The Sabres that SEATO is using will look nearly identical to that of the thunderstreak, now that I think about it, but the plastic will be in a different color so they shouldn’t be too confusing. Especially since MiGs also look identical to Sabres at that scale. Worst case scenario, I could pull a total cop out like Avalon Hill did and just make the strike fighters bigger then the air superiority fighters. Why I would consider using the thunderjet, it was already being phased out at the time and being replaced with the thunderstreak by 1955.
I do appreciate your thoughts and would love to hear what you think about the other sets. If your interested in the subject in general, just DM me and you can be part of the team!
-
So I was finishing the parts list, and it occurred to me how many dice are needed to play the game as I intended. Considering each nuclear attack allows for 15 dice and each thermonuclear 30, the game is pretty dice intensive. So then it occurred to me, should nuclear weapons be that powerful. I mean, each territory is such a large space, what are the chances that thirty separate armies are all going to be that close together? Part of me thinks I should make them less powerful, however, I feel like it takes away from the Cold War feel, and there are already heavy repercussions for using these weapons. Any thoughts?
Suggested Topics
