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, Johnston
Confederate forces west of the Mississippi
Union forces west of the Mississippi
Union navy
Confederate navy
That’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.
@wittmann:
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.
How an A&A-style Civil War game could work is an interesting theoretical question. As you’ve mentioned, the economic element would be a tough nut to crack. In very general terms, perhaps the rough parallel with A&A would be that, in A&A, the Axis starts out militarily strong but economically weak, and thus needs to hit hard and fast before the Allies can crank up their economic output and overwhelm the Axis with sheer numbers. This is a bit similar to the situation that existed at the beginning of the Civil War, but with important differences too. At the start of the conflict, the Confederacy wasn’t really militarily stronger than the Union from a numeric point of view, and wasn’t in a position to invade and conquer Union territory on a large scale (something which, in any case, wasn’t its strategic objective). Rather, the Confederacy was in a fairly good position to fight a defensive war to hold its own territory (this being its actual strategic objective), in part because its armed forces had high motivation and good leadership (especially when compared with the Union side, which was lacking in both areas in the first half of the war). This point, however, raises another difficult issue: should the game system “force” the Union player to replicate the Union’s command deficiencies for the 1861-1863 period, and if so how? I for one would be unhappy with built-in “idiocy rules” that forced me to make the Union’s mistakes.
Your idea about the November 1864 election serving as an end-point is a good one. Instead of the game having A&A-type victory cities for both sides, perhaps it could have political victory conditions on the Confederate side and geographic victory conditions on the Union side. The Confederate objective would be to convince the North that it could never win militarily, i.e. that the best it could ever achieve against the South would be a stalemate. This could be tracked on some sort of political points scale, with a victory being achieved on the Confederate side either by reaching a very high level at any point in the game (at which point the Union quits), or by reaching a somewhat lower level by the November 1864 election (at which point Lincoln loses the election, and his successor is presumed to make peace with the Confederacy). For the Union, victory could be achieved either by occupying a large percentage of the Confederacy’s territory, or by occupying and holding a smaller number of territories that have a higher political value (Virginia would be a key objective).
Thanks and afternoon Marc.
I think that is Larry’s problem with a Civil War game.
It worked for us in original Pacific. If would have to be the only way here too. The North has to win the war(like Japan) and the South hold those all important cities and states.
There would have to be fortifications and there would not be many different kinds of units. Maybe supply tokens, which lessen as territory is lost, would reflect the South’s inability to prosecute an aggressive second half Of the war.
Not easy is it?
But we would buy and love it.
I am not sure how well an A&A style Civil War game would work, but i have played Battle Cry before and that was simple and fun. More like an advanced form of checkers than A&A though, if I remember correctly.
I never got Battle Cry, as it looked too simple.
I think Civil War would work, because it involves conquering land and resources. Maybe contested territories (like WW1) would work better.
Would be fewer units, of course.
@wittmann:
Would be fewer units, of course.
Could just use Risk pieces… infantry, artillery, cavalry. Suppose you might need some ships though.
Transports(river and ocean should be different, but probably easier not to be) and Ironclads(again should be river and ocean going).
The South cannot build ocean going ones.
Blockade runners should be represented somehow too. The blockade’s effects on the South cannot be underestimated. Southern Supply has to be an issue.
Otherwise, as you said: Milita, Inf, Cav and Art.
Battle Cry is a good game. I just picked up the 150th anniversary edition as well as Memoir 44 and Battle Lore.
Personally I’d like to see a 15-16th century axis& Allies style of game.
Battle Cry is a good game. I just picked up the 150th anniversary edition as well as Memoir 44 and Battle Lore.
Personally I’d like to see a 15-16th century axis& Allies style of game.
Hmmm… didn’t know that was around. Might need to look into that.
