Bit late to the party, but I find this intriguing. GI Joe was pretty good so I have hope for this. I hope they’ll keep doing this and I’m curious what other IPs they’ll do this for next (I think a Transformers-themed one would be great, depending on how they handle the pieces).
Larry hints at next game.
-
Thank you Yavid.
Always good to know there re more games in the pipeline. Both sound right up my alley!
Except, I too would like an “operational” game, especially an Eastern front one. -
I know the operational games I thought were great, but they weren’t reviewed well when they were released (how I remember it anyway). I do see D-day in AA14. Kursk or Stalingrad I think would be awesome.
-
Thanks for this interesting catch Yavid. Looking forward to seeing what eventually materializes.
-
Looking forward to see what he has up his sleeve.
-
Seems from his comments he is taking a break from WWII games? WW1… back to CONQUEST OF THE EMPIRE, and now maybe some early American History games? Civil War?
-
Civil War seems like an unstoppered resource.
It would be big. I can see how the A&A mechanics would work with this.
If, however, it is ballsed up like the WW1 game is, I will seriously consider not buying any more of his games.
And that makes me sad. -
Civil War followed by Space Empires ( six players).
-
I don’t think a two player game is too restrictive.
Bulge and D-Day are only 2-3 player games and probably work better one on one.I could think of a few ways to make it work, but do not feel like I need to give Larry a hand!
I will be a typical A&A forum buff and let him create a game, then poo poo it!I forgot you are a Yankee, RJ. Grrr!
Virtute et Armis. -
@rjpeters70:
I’ve long argued for a Civil War game, but I don’t see how it would be more than two players
Easy: Get a group of between three and six players, assign command of the Confederate side to one player, and keep rotating command of the Union side between the other players at every turn. This would not only allow a whole group of people to play, it would also be an accurate and fun simulation of how the Army of the Potomac was led until U.S. Grant came along.
“Yes, sir. I’ve a message here from the new commanding general. George Meade, sir, that’s right! Our very own general of our very own corps has been promoted to command of the whole army. The latest, if you keep track of them as they go by.”
– Private Buster Kilrain, Gettysburg
-
The only problem I see with this is that there are tons of Civil War games already. A 1914 style Civil War game might be cool and I might buy it.
-
@CWO:
@rjpeters70:
I’ve long argued for a Civil War game, but I don’t see how it would be more than two players
Easy: Get a group of between three and six players, assign command of the Confederate side to one player, and keep rotating command of the Union side between the other players at every turn. This would not only allow a whole group of people to play, it would also be an accurate and fun simulation of how the Army of the Potomac was led until U.S. Grant came along.
“Yes, sir. I’ve a message here from the new commanding general. George Meade, sir, that’s right! Our very own general of our very own corps has been promoted to command of the whole army. The latest, if you keep track of them as they go by.”
– Private Buster Kilrain, Gettysburg
don’t forget to add that the North players aren’t allowed to tell each other what there plans are.
-
Seems from his comments he is taking a break from WWII games? WW1… back to CONQUEST OF THE EMPIRE, and now maybe some early American History games? Civil War?
Back to Conquest of the Empire? Interesting, especially after Eagle Games released it with both original (fixed) rules and the new second edition rules. And the Civil War? I very much like Eagle Games’ attempt - especially with the tactical battle board just as their Napoleon in Europe had (and Conquest of the Empire SHOULD have had!).
In other words, Larry is looking at ‘been there, done that’ games. He would have to offer products much superior than what Eagle Games put out to entice me.
I had thought he was doing something set in the crusades time? At least that WAS the case a couple years ago.
-
@rjpeters70:
don’t forget to add that the North players aren’t allowed to tell each other what there plans are.
That would be a given.
Alternately:
1. The successive Union commanders are only allowed to boast to each other that their plan is foolproof, that the war is as good as won, that they’ll soon be hanging Jeff Davis from a sour apple tree, etc.
2. The Union commanders aren’t allowed to have plans.
3. The Unions commanders are only allowed to have bad plans.
4. The Union commanders have to reveal their plans beforehand to the Confederate player, so that he can simulate Robert E. Lee’s uncanny ability to size up his oppenents and anticipate what they’ll do.
-
Not very romanesque if it is medeival ages.
Regardless, I would want to see a battle like Eagle Games had for their games. Maybe I should start posting over there again.
-
It will be Roman Empire, basically a tweaked version of COTE:
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=18463
I’d like to see a medieval version, but feel that the thunder has been stolen somewhat by Warlords of Europe:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/46323/warlords-of-europe
-
I hadn’t seen Warlords before. Looks very interesting. I may have to pick it up.
-
So no Eagle Games style battle board?
That is really too bad. And a missed opportunity.
-
I hadn’t seen Warlords before. Looks very interesting. I may have to pick it up.
Its out of print- but I’m selling a double copy, check out the AA marketplace.
-
What A&A game is displayed in the http://www.axisandallies.org/p/event-hbgcon-may-16-18-2014/ thread?
http://www.axisandallies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/iphone-766.jpeg
-
What A&A game is displayed in the http://www.axisandallies.org/p/event-hbgcon-may-16-18-2014/ thread?
It looks like the Global War version produced by Historical Board Gaming.
Suggested Topics
