Well, I do not know who you messaged, but whoever it is gave you bad information. I am currently play testing the new game right now with about 8 to 10 other gentlemen.
Larry hints at next game.
-
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.
-
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
Yes. that is the Global 1939 game, you are looking at. :-)
-
I would think a “Civil War” A&A style game could potentially host up to 6-8 players.
Army of the Potomac (NE USA)–many commanders
Army of Northern Virginia (SE)–Johnston, Lee
Army of the Cumberland (NW)–Grant, Sherman
Army of the Tennessee (SW)–Bragg, JohnstonConfederate forces west of the Mississippi
Union forces west of the Mississippi
Union navy
Confederate navyThat’s at least 4 players and up to 8.
-
This would be my favourite game, but Larry has said on his site that he has not yet reconciled how the economics can work. The South cannot compete financially.
I see his point.( And feel his pain.)
It has to be turn based and have a cut off point. The November 64 election is the obvious one.
I would love to help.Are you a Civil War buff, Zhukov?
-
The South cannot compete financially.
If Japan can get 100 IPCs, the Confederates can compete with the Union!
In all seriousness, the Civil War would make a great A&A-style game. I would expect interesting political rules for the border states, and Confederate national objectives to represent aid from Europe.
-
Morning Lt Stove.
Please do not get me started on how silly Japan (and Italy) can become in comparison to the US in Global.For a Civil war game, I can see there are difficulties balancing the sides from an economic point of view and have not given the solution much thought. That said, I know such a game would be of immense interest to your continent. (Excuse me if I presume you are American.)I know most of you cannot wait for Amerika. Playing a game of which you know both the history and the geography is a great bonus.
I am sorry I do not own a copy of Napoleon and that I have never found a good English Civil War game. -
Yes I’m American. But a Cavaliers and Roundheads game would appeal to me too :-D
I don’t think the historical truth (huge economic advantage of the North) should get in the way of a potentially amazing game. Or, if you want a more accurate game, perhaps a D-Day or Bulge scale game where economics won’t come into play. Gettysburg, Antietam. Many possibilities.
I think a Civil War game would bring a new batch of history buffs into the A&A community.
Suggested Topics
