Nien
🤔
What would you like to see in a future A&A game?
-
1)Railroads
2)Interfactioning (Alternate Country Combinations)
3)Do a Spring 1942 scenario on a Global 1940 board
4)A 1943 and a 1944 scenario
5)A WWI game
6)An US civil war game
7)An American Revolutionary War game
8)Individual prices, attacks,moves,defends,etc. for every country to have it’s own of #8.
9)That the companies will listen and pay more attention to what A&A.org members want than what they want10) Do individual games for the following fronts:Eastern,Atlantic,Africa/Mediterranean,Pacific(without Asia),Asia(without Pacific),and UK/Northern Europe/Baltic.
11) -
I really liked D-Day. It was a fun game with simple AAA rules. It could be played in a few hours.
I would like to see more like this.
-
Some kind of concealment mechanism might be interesting to introduce. One of the basic differences between A&A (which is a boardgame rather than a military simulator) and true warfare is that, in A&A, you always know where the other side’s forces are, what types of units they consist of and how many units they include. As a result, players can’t really practice one of the key skills of generalship, which is to concentrate strength against weakness by deceiving the enemy about where and when you’ll attack and what forces you’ll do it with. This principle was expressed as far back as Sun Tze’s treatise The Art of War, which stated that all war is based on deception. Two of its famous applications in World War II were the German main attack through the Ardennes in June 1940 (while the French and British were charging towards a diversionary force in Belgium and Holland) and the Allied D-Day landings in Normandy (while the Germans were fixated on the idea that the real attack would occur at the Pas-de-Calais).
-
-
A map with hexes.
-
A random casualty system.
-
Simple terrain considerations
-
3 to 3.5 (4 tops) hour duration
i.e. a traditional wargame ‘lite’ ala Battle of the Bulge
-
-
-
@special:
- Simple terrain considerations
What exactly do you mean by this?
There is a balancing act between rules that add depth to gameplay and rules that just complicate gameplay. By ‘simple’ I mean added depth with minimal increase in complication.
The threshold for ‘simple’ in this regard is different for every game and given the House Rules forum different for every player.
-
Terrain:
tanks cant blitz
tanks attack at -1
infantry defends at +1
-
I’d like to see a modern game involving diplomacy.
Maybe EU, China, Japan, Russia, US,and India players, as well as a Middle East faction of some sort, and you make or break alliances as you choose.
-
@Imperious:
Pre-painted pieces with all units dedicated nationally and neutrals.
1939 is fine, but doing a ww1 game would be better. Its time to see something from another war. Only so many times can we fight WW2.
I agree, a WWI game would rock!
-
Axis doesnt lose the war, there is an armistice its 1980 now, and the war starts again with 3 distinct factions. Fascist, Democrat, Communist.
Every fights for everything they can get, nuclear war aside, up to and including skirmishes on the moon or over satelites in space.
-
Vargas girls.
For the rest - good suggestions through the thread. But the 1980 nov scenario with the moon really isn’t Axis and Allies anymore . . . they’d have to at least give it a new variant name, like D-Day or Pacific have.
-
Call it “Allies never ended Axis.”
-
A life size board, and sensors that turn the territory a different color depending on who has control of the territory!
-
1)Railroads
2)Interfactioning (Alternate Country Combinations)
3)Do a Spring 1942 scenario on a Global 1940 board
4)A 1943 and a 1944 scenario
5)A WWI game
6)An US civil war game
7)An American Revolutionary War game
8)Individual prices, attacks,moves,defends,etc. for every country to have it’s own of #8.
9)That the companies will listen and pay more attention to what A&A.org members want than what they want10) Do individual games for the following fronts:Eastern,Atlantic,Africa/Mediterranean,Pacific(without Asia),Asia(without Pacific),and UK/Northern Europe/Baltic.
11)An American Civil War game would be great. There has never been a decent map produced for one of these games.
-
A re-rerelease of AA42 with all the extras included like AAR had.
-
Would love to see more simulations of individual battles, a la Bulge and D-Day. Some that come to mind are Kursk, Stalingrad, and Anzio.
Terrain considerations would be great too, even simple ones. Wouldn’t make much sense for the big games, but it’s almost essential for the smaller scenarios I favor.
-
A Eastern front game with individual hexes to show terrain type and height which meant you could build a scenario listed in the book or create your own. You could have multiple scenarios which take an hour or 2 and you could have anywhere betwenn 4-8 scenario so you could play the whole eastern front in a weekend.
scenarios would be:
(In no order)
Kiev
Stalingrad(German)
Leningrad
Stalingrad(counter attack)
KurskAnymore ideas post below
-
Battles like Midway, and the proposed invasion of Japan, the last stand in Berlin, a US invasion by Germany and Japan, Phillipenes, Africa, Mediterranian, etc.
-
@strategic:
A life size board, and sensors that turn the territory a different color depending on who has control of the territory!
I disagree on life size since g40 is huge enough but I like the sensor idea.
I think that Strategic Planner’s dreams will never happen.
-
If FMG ever gets the Italians ready then I can get back to working on my North Africa version.
Suggested Topics
