Nice.
New Axis & Allies Varient
-
I am planning to creat a board game using Axis & Allies type rules, but instead of using locked Alliences it would be a free for all game like Risk. It would be set in the modern era with todays most powerfull countries fightring for global supremance. I was thinking the European Union could count as a country for game purposes. I was thinking the economy rules could be just as they are in A&A, but the political and milatary aspects of the game should be deeper(ecpseiacly the politics part). Even though it is a game of global conquest it should still have a realistic feel to it, the milatary units should share the same streagths and weaknesses as they do in real life, you shouldn’t be able to get away with nuking a country that did not want to give you 3 IPCs that turn even when sayed please.
Here are the major powers I was thinking of
Almost positive will be in the game
United States
China
India
RussiaMaybes
European Union
Japan
Brazil
Middle Eastern Coaltion( Really not sure about this one)Well, tell be what you think. what countries should be playable and wich ones should not, make up rules for units , post info on rule world politcs, anything that can push this game along, I’m really relying on you to help me finish this game. Any questions, post them too.
-
When does the game take place?
-
2010, 2020 some time in the near future
-
Well then forget Brazil… American player in such a war would have all the help of the latin nations like it did in ww2. This American Coalition would consist of Canada ( sake Quebic) and most of S america with a few desenting neutrals ( cuba)
-
Interesting, I like it, could you come up with other satilite states for other nations, or maybe the US player good be a super power and the game could be designed so the US purposly has an advantage over the other nations. Of course other players resentment of the US player having more would likly lead to alliences against the US. Then the game would naturally balence out.
I conda like this idea of one player having an unfair “advatage” at the begining of the game. What do you think?
-
@Imperious:
Well then forget Brazil… American player in such a war would have all the help of the latin nations like it did in ww2. This American Coalition would consist of Canada ( sake Quebic) and most of S america with a few desenting neutrals ( cuba)
I can’t imagine why south americans would help the USA. There is a strong anti-northamerican sense in latin america because of USA actions in the past (Chile p.e.). Not only Castro. Think in Venezuela or Bolivia. Sure Evo Morales or Chavez would not aid the US. Lula in Brasil would not aid them i think and Chile also not. Mexicans would want emigration advantages and the others would be neutrals having their own troubles (drugs in Colombia). At the best, they would do very unstable allies for the US. Canada maybe could join but they seem to pacifist to join in a global conquest. In fact, US better allies would be Israel, Japan and UK.
Anyway, I’d suggest as playable countries:
USA
European Union
Russia
Islamic Alliance
China -
but under the threat of a real world war where the entire world was fighting for its own interests, their are natural allies that come back to the fold. In eastern europe for example if Russia was threatenend all those former eastern bloc nations and breakaway territories would come back to help the old Russia. Old feelings would be left at the door to fight the larger calling that threatenend them all.
-
You both bring up good points, but what i think it comes down to is what type of game it’s going to be. And sense its partially a diplomacy game choosing sides in a global conflict should represented in the game. I think I’ll make Brazil a player nation and make the rest of south America neutral regions that will either submit to players though force or peaceful means like in the game War! Age of Imperialism by Eagle games.
Player Nations and why they are player nations
United States: Greatest Country ever, duh?
China: Growing economy, huge army, huge country, huge population
Russia: Actually this country lacks everything I require for a country to be a player nation. And it wouldn’t a player nations unless it wasn’t the biggest country in the world. It is just to much space for a single Neutral Nation
European Union: Although the dream of a Unified Europe travels farther away each day it would be to complicated to split Europe up amongst its many powerful nations.
India: It has the army, the nukes, the population, the land, the economy, etc., Why not.
Brazil: mentioned above.
Japan: although small, very powerfull and a much needed counter balance to China in the south pacific.Why no Mid East Coalition?: Its to unrealistic and out there. Osamas dreams of a New Muslim Caliphate are far from materializing. I think in this game The mideast and Africa should be a huge battle ground for the player-nations to fight over and claim satellite states.
PS: Remember the player nations can and will change over the course of making this game. If you disagree with this selection of nations please say why.
I’d like to hear what you guys think of military units in modern warfare and which ones should be represented in the game.
-
United States: Greatest Country ever, duh?
US should include at the very least : Canada, Japan, South Korea and UKChina: Growing economy, huge army, huge country, huge population
China includes Vietnam, North Korea, and MongoliaRussia: Actually this country lacks everything I require for a country to be a player nation. And it wouldn’t a player nations unless it wasn’t the biggest country in the world. It is just to much space for a single Neutral Nation
Russia includes all affiliate nations and some eastern bloc nations.European Union: Although the dream of a Unified Europe travels farther away each day it would be to complicated to split Europe up amongst its many powerful nations.
Germany, Spain, central Europe, poland, Italy,Austria… France is on its own or aligned with them. this coalition is very volital because France cant make up its mind from one day to the next. I would consider a large seperate map for Europe for warfare in these nations because you would want to have more global territories.India: It has the army, the nukes, the population, the land, the economy, etc., Why not.
On its own they hate China and Pakistan but are not aggressiveBrazil: mentioned above.
All south America is open to either independent or allies of USA… the US player has best chance to convert them.Japan: although small, very powerfull and a much needed counter balance to China in the south pacific.
Their existence depends on USA the threat of China pushes them as US ally. japan has no natural ally in Asia anymore. At least until China is destroyed…best book on this… but its 1985 when the war starts. This book is complete with OOB for both sides. You may want to get SPI’s third world war which has a rather good game. its a good starting point for research. The problem is too far in the future had no adeduate research and secondly, the viability of such a conflict is very speculative. At least a 1985 scenario has a complete Soviet Union and other realistic allies and enemies.
Also note you can obtain nice plastic pieces for this game that are cold war styles of equipment from table tactics. Not to mention the other companies that offer pieces of current and past tanks and planes.
The Third World War, August 1985, by General Sir John Hackett, set in a 1980s war based on the NATO scenario -
@Imperious:
United States: Greatest Country ever, duh?
US should include at the very least : Canada, Japan, South Korea and UKChina: Growing economy, huge army, huge country, huge population
China includes Vietnam, North Korea, and MongoliaRussia: Actually this country lacks everything I require for a country to be a player nation. And it wouldn’t a player nations unless it wasn’t the biggest country in the world. It is just to much space for a single Neutral Nation
Russia includes all affiliate nations and some eastern bloc nations.European Union: Although the dream of a Unified Europe travels farther away each day it would be to complicated to split Europe up amongst its many powerful nations.
Germany, Spain, central Europe, poland, Italy,Austria… France is on its own or aligned with them. this coalition is very volital because France cant make up its mind from one day to the next. I would consider a large seperate map for Europe for warfare in these nations because you would want to have more global territories.India: It has the army, the nukes, the population, the land, the economy, etc., Why not.
On its own they hate China and Pakistan but are not aggressiveBrazil: mentioned above.
All south America is open to either independent or allies of USA… the US player has best chance to convert them.Japan: although small, very powerfull and a much needed counter balance to China in the south pacific.
Their existence depends on USA the threat of China pushes them as US ally. japan has no natural ally in Asia anymore. At least until China is destroyed…best book on this… but its 1985 when the war starts. This book is complete with OOB for both sides. You may want to get SPI’s third world war which has a rather good game. its a good starting point for research. The problem is too far in the future had no adeduate research and secondly, the viability of such a conflict is very speculative. At least a 1985 scenario has a complete Soviet Union and other realistic allies and enemies.
Also note you can obtain nice plastic pieces for this game that are cold war styles of equipment from table tactics. Not to mention the other companies that offer pieces of current and past tanks and planes.
The Third World War, August 1985, by General Sir John Hackett, set in a 1980s war based on the NATO scenario -
In a Diplomacy style game, Brazil could fit and sure it would be easier from Lula getting aid from Chavez, Evo Morales or Castro. Those three never would aid the US.
European Union would get a boost in a Diplomacy game. Her population would never support a long war, diplomacy fits more on EU. The russians wold have troubles in convincing ancient soviet republics join their cause. Baltic states, Ucrania and even maybe Poland not join.
Let the Mongols neutral. I see no reason they can join China or Russia. In our times, it seems as an asian Switzerland.
The muslims could fit as an alliance. At least Saudi Arabia has enough power or money to get some allies. Easier than Chavez and Castro aiding the US :lol:
And nukes should be restricted or they ruled the whole game. If it is diplomacy, a lone nuke is the end of diplomacy… and sure the end of mankind :cry:
-
If the designer wants a game taking place in the future… there is no castro. once castro goes Cuba throws off the yoke of Communism. By the end of the year they probably put up casinos again
-
What od you think about milatary units in the game
-
for what period? 1975-1985-2025?
ill make a list depending on what year the war starts. need to know d6 or d12 dice?
-
2025, d12
thx
-
Yikes! i have no idea what will still be around in terms of military hardware… most likely anything out today will be gone and outdated by that date so its impossible to present any realistic OOB… even nuclear weapons will be different by then. If you use whats just out their now it will be much easier to construct a wargame.
-
OK, fine, what military units would be in a d12 2006 game
-
-
thanks a lot
I’ll start working on the rules and OOB
I think each unit should represent a corp
How about you guys! -
Yes in a strategic setting its a must! however if your just doing say ww3 in europe you can get away with divisions and its better suited in many cases for modern scenarios ( armies are much smaller then in ww2)
On the fleets you may want to take accross the board ratios of naval balance and assign a breakdown.’
so every 3 carriers is represented by one unit
every 10 missile frigate = one unitetc…
Ill search for nuclear capabilities so players can basically blow up the world for fun!
Suggested Topics
