Nice.
Custom variant under development
-
My friends and I have been working on a new custom variant - you can see some pics at:
http://www.ww2wargame.com/forum/index.php?topic=274.0
A lot of good ideas and suggestions from folks on this forum - a great community of wargamers - so thanks!
-
wow awesome pics.
Thanks for posting.
LT
-
are the miniatures glued to the counters? I see a number of infantry with really small bases which do not lend themselves to standing up well under play conditions.
The new map has alot of new territories and i think it will take forever to play on. How long was the game?
-
Yes - all the minis are mounted on counters - and they stand up just fine under pretty intense gaming - not a problem
We played the game to conclusion over the weekend - it is not an afternoon kind of game. . . but it is not a World in Flames or World at War kind of 100 hour game either. . .
While it’s still under development, it was a blast - thanks! We have been using a simultaneous/alternating move concept which speeds up play quite a bit - and gets rid of the predictable “you move and attack, I move and attack” turn based system.
-
While it’s still under development, it was a blast
I have many years of experience with this system. Under AARHE we use the all axis all allies move sequence and it really does cut down on time.
I hope you can make a version of that game thats a bit easier to play….something closer to normal AA style games.
-
cool, that looks awsome,
lots of territories, leaders, railroads! -
Thanks for the compliment - there are a lot of ideas incorporated into the game - some of which have been brought up by designers on this forum. . .
Actually the leaders are an important part of the game and give it another dimension which is a lot of fun. Leaders have an ‘initiative rating’ which determines when they can move - we have done away with a more traditional Axis turn / Allied turn in favor of a simultaneous turn where you never know exactly if you will get to move before your opponent. A leader with a good initiative (like Rommel) stands a better chance of getting to move first (or last - depending on what he wants to do) on a turn than a leader with a slow initiative rating -like some of the early French and Russian generals. This adds a lot of flavor as you never know who might get the jump on you to attack a territory. It introduces a lot more uncertainty into the game. We’re playtesting it again in a couple weeks and I’ll post a few more pictures then.
-
where are these rules? this is not the standard game.
-
Can’t wait to see the details, looks very interesting. Like the maps!
-
@Imperious:
The new map has alot of new territories and i think it will take forever to play on. How long was the game?
Sir, you are correct. This map have far too many territories and sea zones. Must be boring when the German offensive are bogged down, and you know the Allies will win, and that will take 20 turns more. I think A&A Anniversary map is the best.
-
I wish they made a version that has 1/3 the territories or just made it Europe OR Pacific and dumped the “ships move slower across the artificial line thing”
Its turning into ‘world in flames’ and that not really good for AA>
-
unless they have a moving system, where tanks move 3, infantry 2 and ships 4 spaces
-
Another problem with having way to many spaces is that they are only worth 0, 1, maybe 2. Not worth building an IC there to help speed things up for two units.
Some times I miss the simpler days of A&A Classic.
-
@LT04:
Another problem with having way to many spaces is that they are only worth 0, 1, maybe 2. Not worth building an IC there to help speed things up for two units.
What should be done, if you want an historic correct game, is to give some vital territories an high value, and other territories no value. Some territories had oil, like south Romenia, Caucasus and Iraq, other places had iron ore, like northern Sweden, and some places had big industri, like western Germany, eastern Ukraine, Volga and UK. So this territories should have high value. And poor places in the wilderness, like Belo-Russia, Northern Norway, Eastern Poland should have no value.
But because of playability, because the designer want battles in all territories, they usually give each territory the same value. So usually Germany with big industri and big resources and big population, have a 6 IPC value, and Belo-Russia with no industri, no resources and a small population, also get 4 IPC value. In the most insane case, there was this map that gave impassable Himalaya an IPC value of 2. That was half the value of Germany. I guess the designer had never visited Himalaya. But the result was, that impassable Himalaya had more action than the historical battlefields.
Suggested Topics
