@General-Day Apologies for the delay (we’ve been busy with holiday activities). We are fine sending you the map and rules for the game, with the obvious proviso that we retain all copyrights to them. Please email us at pmfproductionscontact@gmail.com and we can send you the map and rules. We hope you and your friend will find them helpful and we’ll be interested in any feedback you have!
New Axis & Allies Varient
-
I like the Idea. A couple of thoughts.
5 Major powers seems optimal, my picks:
US duh? - (w/Britian & Canada)
European Union (Including the former Soviet Satellite states)
Russia (The old USSR not including Sateliite countries-I doubt the countries of the Eastern Bloc (the old Warsaw pact) would be eager to realign with Russia, more likely they would ally with the EU.)
China
ASEAN (Association of S.E. Asian Nations-Japan, Korea, Taiwan, South Pacific)This leaves alot of territory unassigned, some sort of “Economic Spheres of Influence” or Trade could be incorporated to handle these.
In a free for all game of 5 players max, how will you handle a game with less than the max # of players?
Nukes…these are a problem.
-
I like the Idea. A couple of thoughts.
5 Major powers seems optimal, my picks:
US duh? - (w/Britian & Canada)
European Union (Including the former Soviet Satellite states)
Russia (The old USSR not including Sateliite countries-I doubt the countries of the Eastern Bloc (the old Warsaw pact) would be eager to realign with Russia, more likely they would ally with the EU.)
China
ASEAN (Association of S.E. Asian Nations-Japan, Korea, Taiwan, South Pacific)This leaves alot of territory unassigned, some sort of “Economic Spheres of Influence” or Trade could be incorporated to handle these.
In a free for all game of 5 players max, how will you handle a game with less than the max # of players?
Nukes…these are a problem.
Good choices, what do you thing about India as a major nation
When players are not avalible to play certain major nations they wwillremain neutral until some one pays a certain amount of money an etemptto sway that non player major nation to their side, then they controll that nation until another player sways the non player major nation away from their side.
Nukes, a problem maybe, I aactuallylike the idea of having super destructive weapons with unlimited range, not because a like games that end the first turn but because I like games that are realistic. I doubt that in the real world a war between to major powers with nuclear ccapabilities would result in nuclear war, most of the fighting would probable involve mass tank battle with air and naval mmissilesupport. Even if one side was losing, using nuclear missiles would make situation iinfinitelyworse for them and their enemy. The only real nuclear treat in the world to day is not from Iran or North Korea or any ccountryfor that matter, it is from a group of people who are insane, crazy, and uunreasonable that if they did got their hands on a nuke they would use it iimmediately
Al-Queda
I think this should be represented the game -
I now have decided on six player nations
US
China
Russia
EU
India
BrazilNations will be able to build four main types of military units
Army’s
Naives
Airforce
NukesCertain locations on the map will have special graphics representing major cities and ports, and religious locations
Optional rules could include a seventh player who acts as Al_Queda and other Islamic TerroristsI was also thinking about how you could spice up the economical side of the game buy moving different types of recourses I was thinking
Capital
Food
Oil
WeaponsFeedback?
-
spice up the economical side of the game buy moving different types of resources:
OIL
economic AID
Military AID
1) direct weapons
2) advisors who help the nation get organized
Technology AID
diplomatic pressure ( this can be considered a currency of sorts)
economic pressure ( same here) -
- direct weapons
 2) advisors who help the nation get organise
I like this Idea, although this aid would be given to countries in civil war.
Okay I have a new Idea, see if you like it, instead of the game consisting of improbable wars between major countries in the world, what if it just mostly consisted of the major powers having proxy wars with one another. you could have multiply tactical maps which represent the geography of regions in the world like the:
Middle East
Central Asia
Southwest Asia
Korea
Africa
Latin America
Then the major powers would send their units to these location and fight a war with anyone who whanted to challege them in that region.
- direct weapons
-
Well the basic game would be something where each player has either more military might, resources (oil) which can be converted to purchase weapons, lastly, a nation could have political (diplomacy points) which is can earn if it stays out of trouble and which can also be exchanged for bargining chits…
i picture a card system for random events and also the “currency cards” consisting of diplomacy, military, political, economic influence… each coalition would have some basic point value representing armies and a defined number of these cards that can be exchanged in a diplomacy phase of the game. The goal is eventually reaching some point goal whereby a player counts up his military forces, conquered nations, and all those political cards that he traded for during the game. Also each nation would have some national goals that it could achieve in order to gain victory. The nuclear option would be the great denyer to any player who was winning with a huge margin… the other players could gang up and drop bombs if somebody got too far ahead in the point race. Yaquinto games made a nice game called “ultimatum” (i own this). also SPI had a nice game called world war 3 ( i have this too). the last game has no diplomacy except when its time to use the nuclear option.
-
Take Brazil out. It’s not really a world power. Instead add North Korea (a developing nation, since they have nukes and ballistic missiles and all that). Also since the war is in the Mid East add Israel and Pakistan.
-
Id say the same thing… the South American nations are really only militarily set up for regional conflicts… they are not capable of having a war with say any major player. they make good minor neutrals.
-
I’ve been working on the same thing. I posted my map for printing at zazzle.com. I kept it more basic then what’s been discussed here, just China, Russia and allies, NATO, and USA and aliies. I based the force levels on current data from strategypage.com, Janes Defense, and the Federation of Atomic Scientists. (excellent reference if you ever need to know who has what for strategic and tactical nuclear weapons systems). I have the map saved as a photoshop document but it’s over 400 MB. The rules I can email to anyone interested.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I just found another game of this type:
April 04, 2006
Fantasy Flight Games has an ambitious slate of board games set for 2006. In addition to the games based on Blizzard Entertainment properties (see “Fantasy Flight Expands Blizzard Lines”), FFG is planning on releasing two new big box board games, Reins of Power, a game of geopolitical superpower diplomacy, and Tide of Iron, a game of World War II-era squad-based tactical combat. Both of these large format board games will come with lots of plastic figures, plenty of cards, dice and cardboard markets.have to wait and see what this one looks like
-
Tide of iron was played at gencon 2006 . you can see pics of it. It will comeout in dec. The other game will be looking like 2008 release.
-
Yeah, I was looking at Reins of Power. 2008 you say? I also see you already posted the Federation of Atomic scientist links as well. I’d be glad to help if anyone needs it.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Can you post a clearer pic of the map? centered on central and eastern europe?
-
hows this?
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Does anyone have a link to see the new games coming out by fantasyflightgames?
-
for nuclear weapons i think you could try this these are the rules i use. the US and Russia only starts
with 11 nuclear missiles each., so if your having a lot the rules would probabbly be differnt. i’m not sure about the price for one thou. if you are the first person to launch a missle you collect half of your income(round down) this turn; your country went on strike.
For nuclear weapons if it struck a territory the economy would fail not producing IPCs, with any factory there destroyed. Half the infantry die per missle from nuclear fallout with 1 infantry being lost from each boarder territory also per nuclear missile. This space can’t be occupied by land units. When a factory is built there all this is undone. I’m not sure about cost but they can move like this,Medium-4, Short 1, Long-7. Antiaircraft guns and fighters can defend against any nuclear missile that go’s though the territory. Fighters can only defend for one round while Antiaircraft guns still work the same. heres where the nukes would be -
Does anyone have a link to see the new games coming out by fantasyflightgames?
its not up yet.
-
Maybe a islamitic union instead of the mid east coalition. BTW, there is on World War 3 game on BoardGameGeek
-
Maybe a islamitic union instead of the mid east coalition. BTW, there is on World War 3 game on BoardGameGeek
necro!
Suggested Topics
