A 1939 scenario, or from 1933 until 1939 would be different from the rest of the A&A games. There’s no problem in adding another game, which would be very different from the game mechanichs that we see in the A&A series.
Such a game would not be instead of war games like AA50, AAR and AA42, but an additional game or series, which must include switching alliances and politics and could possibly have a similar combat system as other A&A games, or even a completely different combat system.
Maybe after AA42??
@Subotai:
Such a game would not be instead of war games like AA50, AAR and AA42, but an additional game or series, which must include switching alliances and politics and could possibly have a similar combat system as other A&A games, or even a completely different combat system.
Why should it have a different combat system ?
The A&A 50 Ann. combat system is perfect. Its easy and simple, fast to resolve, and realistic.
The only thing a 1939 game need, are a diplomatic system. There are already developed severals of this systems, in the House rule section for AARHE and AARHEE, Jeff’s the Wargame, the Struggle, Eagle Games’ ATTACK! and Xenon’s World at war 1939. Also some of the serious WWII counter games like World in Flames have a diplomatic system that can be used in an A&A 1939 game. But if you ask me, I favour the rules from Diplomacy. They are simple and beautiful.
The only issue as I see it, is the US entry into the war.
If the game start in 1939, everybody but USA are in the war. How to fix this ? Give USA no starting units, so it has to use some turns to build units before she dare to join the war ? Or make a rule that says USA are not allowed to attack anyone before Turn 4 ?
Xeno do it this way:
USA are not allowed to attack any before turn 5, and USA only recive half IPC income before turn 4.
USSR are not allowed to attack any before turn 3, and only get 67 % of IPV income before turn 2.
Uk are not….etc etc
I dont like this s*ity rules. Then it would be better to start the game in 1933, and let any nation be free to allign to who they see fit, or free to attack any they dont like. In real world, the dark blue capitalist pigs of Britain and U$A was indeed allied to red commie Sovjet Union. Is there any rational reason that UK can not be allied to Germany, and gang up on Stalin ? Or what if Germany and USSR had continued to be allies, and togheter fighted the Western capitalist Allies ?
There are games like this, like ADG (Australian Design Group)’ “Decisions” (wrong spell I know), but this game have a difficult and booged down diplomatic system with lots of sheeds and rules for what you can do in turn 3 and what is not allowed in turn 5 etc etc…
The best is to keep it simple.
…thinking aloud about it, maybe overly simplistic, but I agree on the idea to keep it simple.
the entry of USSR and USA would be the crucial points. if you setup a timeline for their entry, like the aforementioned Xeno play, with a certain number of turns till entry or attacking of any of a particular set of territories to bring them in.
for USSR, maybe turn X, or the attack of any SU territory, places like Persia, or chinese territories within 2 of SU, or even put places like turkey or Afghanistan into play and make these marks.
entry of USA could be amphib assualt on Britain, Brazil, or Australia or turn Y.
-they could also receive percentages of their normal income until these occur.
instead of all the minor countries added, I’d think they could fall under the UK’s control, as they’d be the only Allied power in play from the start and they are already either connected to or in control of most of these places in the game as it stands. Most of Africa is UK controlled, even though France and other European countries had colonial control/influence there. It would be similar to how Germany assumes the control of smaller Axis-nations like Yugo.
The play setup could allow Germany to attack Poland or France on G1, and not invade SU until later, or else UK could utilize the Polish troops for example.
I’m not familiar with the ‘Diplomacy’ rules but I would think that the diplomacy of the game could be as simple as you attack and we’re enemies or you don’t at we aren’t. Much of what the Axis power-grabbed was allowed simply because the rest of the world didn’t think it worth the effort to step up against it.
In the AA50 Rulebook, Larry Harris cites three problems with a 1939 scenario:
1. The game would automatically be much longer to play.
2. The Unites States would not participate in the Game for the first three of four turns.
3. The game would suffer from a rather slow and predictable start.
This, and several other issues, would prove to be too problematic from a game point of view.
As many of you have said, the fact that all the powers start with much fewer units is a problem, yet there are also other obvious ones. It’s these notorious “other issues” I’m curious about. Yet, now that I reread through what Larry said and have thought it over, I don’t think he sees it as simply “to add a cruiser, or not to add a cruiser.” It seems that he really feels that a 1939 A&A game wouldn’t just be difficult to make, but not be fun to play. Perhaps he feels it would be as painful as watching the first two Star Wars prequels. All they do is talk politics, and you just want them to get on with the darn war!
Larry has said on his forum that he doesn’t want to talk about it. Perhaps we’re better off simply not knowing , just as we would have been better off not knowing Darth Vader was a winy teenager.
In the AA50 Rulebook, Larry Harris cites three problems with a 1939 scenario:
1. The game would automatically be much longer to play.
-like playing 10 hours now is the apparent breaking point…2. The Unites States would not participate in the Game for the first three of four turns.
-a historical aspect that only affects 1 of 6 players, about as short of a straw as drawing Italy’s 10 IPCs…livable3. The game would suffer from a rather slow and predictable start.
-after all the complaints about being stuck with another game where Axis must sandwich Russia, wouldn’t the ability to take out UK first be a nice change of pace?This, and several other issues, would prove to be too problematic from a game point of view.
this means it’s being worked on, but other things are in the queue first.
What about a 1939 scenario in which Germany probably captures UK, but all countries have more realistic industrial production levels than today? This means US about 80-90 ipc? Japan 15? And industrial production doesn’t change as much as in A&A games, but only the most important TTs will give more income to the powers. So Germany could actually pull it off against Russia if UK already done deal, Japan will be an easy prey nonetheless, and US is actually strong enough to recapture UK and take on Germany. Or if Germany goes all out against Russia, Moscow will probably fall, but then Germany must fight UK+US? I think it could be a great game, just not too much realism instead of a fun game.
Hey Turtle.
I do it by myself.
1939 world at war game.
I can send you you pictures by email…
I would like to see these pictures also - can you send them to me?
Thanks.
I think it was probably meant for the AA50 board, so I can’t imagine an 80 IPC US. Maybe we should design our own 1939 scenario. You can download a 39 scenario for AA Classic from this thread: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=14068.0;topicseen
Sorry, I forget which download. It was printed in Battleplan Magazine in the 80s. I don’t agree with the scenario completely. I think each side has too much stuff, though I agree with UK player having control over France. There are several A&A variants in the one issue, all compliments of Imperious Leader.
1939 is a very silly date to start any wargame. All that happened is poland was conquered and the Russia’s launched a botched invasion of Finland which is something impossible to simulate in axis&allies unless the 2 finish infantry take four hits to kill each.
A much more intersting date is spring 1940, a whole lot happens that year that changed the war dramaticly. I always feel in 1941-1943 setups that everything is locked in place and their is no varaity.
A 1944-1945 start date would also be intersting if you added some cold war rules, Italy would be on the allies side and their peices would also represent free french and Germany and Japan would be severly weakened. What would make it intersting is the Soveit Union would have its own victory conditions seperate from the US/UK/Italy.
Anyways I would love to make or for someone else to make a good 1940 scenario
With a 1940 scenario we could have a wargame similar to AAR, AA50 and AA42, just some different scenarios. A 1939 map (or earlier) should include politics and switching alliances, if not then there’s no point in making a 1939 scenario.
Perhaps we should ask Larry to make a 1940 scenario which would not be much more different from AA50/AA42 than AA50 is from AAR.
It would still be cool to have 1939 variant with politics and backstabbing other players.
I’m not sure if the politics thing is how it would work. Even AA50 starting in spring 1941 is a sort of “what if” where things start off a bit earlier than they did. I’m sure a 40 or 39 scenario would be the same with no politics.
I would think with a 1940 scenario you would have extra political rules or at least restictions on country entry
my objection to a 39 scenario is that nothing happened that year worth simulating.
another good date is 1950/ Korean War gone global deal. you could use most of the same peices too, just get some F86 Sabre peices for the allies and mig-15s for the soveits, plus maybe m26,m46s for allied tanks and some b-29 bombers
In any of these scenarios it would also probably require some editing of the map to make it good.
The most important issue when making a map/scenario/game which starts before the usual setups in A&A, is to play out different possible outcomes of the war, setting different premises than the usual ones. In the 41 setup in AA50 Germany and Russia is already at war, we cannot make other changes, then we’d make another game, not only house rules. Same goes for Germany and UK, no player can choose not having a war between UK and Germany in 41.
The point of designing a map or scenario which starts in 1939 or 1940 is to make it possible for Germany to not attack Russia, at least not until later, or to Join Russia against UK, or Germany joins UK and goes against Russia. A possible setup with mostly defensive units which makes it suicide for both Germany and Russia to attack each other in the beginning of such a scenario, they’d have to build offensive units first. If Germany went all out against UK in the real WW2 they might have taken UK out of the “game” so to speak.
Or a possible scenario in which Germany and Russia makes an alliance, and conquers all the land the can until there are only two powers left, Germany and Russia, which then goes to war to settle once and for all who shall rule the world.
US is the single most powerful nation in any scenario, at least should be, but if all other territories are captured by other powers, then US will not be the strongest anymore, at least not if two or several powers makes a join venture in the prospect of removing the US as the superpower to become, once and for all. The conquest for global supremacy can take many different directions.
that sounds like a blueprint for a very interesting game Subotai
what if you hap a 1940 setup, where it was free for all but with historical victory conditions
US
must control eight vicotry cities
Russia must control eight vicotry cities
Germany/italy(still one player) must control london
Britain must control Germany
Japan must conquer all of china/asia
or he could make a totally fictional war between X and Y! but using the same rules as Axis and Allies (for combat, movement, IPC-buying units, etc)
Robert
I think that a '39 scenario with politics would be biased toward the Axis for one simple reasons: it allows them to manage their threats. If Germany and Japan would’ve taken on their threats one at a time they wouldn’t have had to deal with having so much on their plate. If Germany had worried about the UK before they worried about the USSR, and if the Japanese would’ve finished off China before going after European colonies the world would be a much different place.
Yes but if Gemrnay had not invaded the USSR in 1941 it might have been Germany that was being invaded in 1942
and in axis and allies even with the allies at war with japan china is almost completely destoryed on the first turn
Hey Turtle.
I do it by myself.
1939 world at war game.
I can send you you pictures by email…
Sorry for the late reply. Yes, I’d like to see your '39 scenario. I try no to give out my e-mail, though.
Try posting pictures through Mediafire .com That way, everyone can see them. I’m not familiar with the site, though. Best to ask Imperious Leader. He posts tons of pics.
use www.mediafire.com for uploading pics its the easiest way to do this.
