Fortunes of Victory - New Cards

[Trenacker]

I want the FMG Italians, but, as I said, I can’t seem to pay via Pay Pal. For some reason, that functionality isn’t there.

HBG has great stuff. I’m eager for them to get the expansion packs for 1939 Global back in stock.

I’m also eager to find some A&A Pacific 1st edition red Japanese infantry.

[LHoffman]

@Trenacker:

I want the FMG Italians, but, as I said, I can’t seem to pay via Pay Pal. For some reason, that functionality isn’t there.

HBG has great stuff. I’m eager for them to get the expansion packs for 1939 Global back in stock.

I’m also eager to find some A&A Pacific 1st edition red Japanese infantry.

FMG is kind of MIA, if you know what I mean.

Just my advice though… make any and all transactions through HBG’s website. They sell most of FMG’s products, even the Italian units; they have run out of some though. People have had lots of issues with FMG returning emails and fulfilling orders. My understanding is that a production issue in China nearly sank the company, but they are not what they once were.

[Trenacker]

Thanks for the advice.

I think HBG’s been out of stock on the Italian pieces for about a month.

Is there a thread on which we can suggest new pieces? I think that horse cavalry, torpedo boats, and combat engineers are obvious next sculpts.

I’ve also picked up a copy of the old Civilization boardgame by Eagle Games, a well as some 1:72 pieces by HIT.

Anyway, more cards tonight.

[LHoffman]

@Trenacker:

I think HBG’s been out of stock on the Italian pieces for about a month.

I just checked, they still have some. You have to click on each individual unit to see if there are any left in stock. Some are out though. I clicked on the transport and they have like 153 left or something.

@Trenacker:

Is there a thread on which we can suggest new pieces? I think that horse cavalry, torpedo boats, and combat engineers are obvious next sculpts.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=27911.1080    This is more or less the de facto HBG thread on updates and new pieces, both commentary and requests.

The three you suggested above are cool ideas, but to me they wouldn’t really fit with A&A or Global War. Horse Cavalry may work in A&A 1914, but they played a small role in WWII and are highly inferior to any of the other units you could purchase. The other two just have problems with scale. A torpedo boat force is just too small, un-noteworthy and ineffective on a strategic level compared to all the other sea units in the game. Same with engineers; they are a small, tactical level unit. Axis & Allies as it is has no way to differentiate them from ordinary infantry… the game is just too big for that. If you have some ideas drawn up for them, I would be interested to listen, but in general, I just don’t see how engineers or torpedo boats fit in.

[Trenacker]

Yeah. I’m waiting for the Italian trucks. Gosh darn it, I want those so badly. They’re on the silhouettes for Global 1940, but the Italian pieces OOB are German copies in dark brown.

Horse cavalry made an appearance for minor powers. I think it was certainly decisive in many of the secondary theaters.

I admit that the current set of units mostly accounts for all the strategic level considerations. Nonetheless, smaller “auxiliary” craft would still be neat. And combat engineers are no less tactical than, say, self-propelled artillery, which is a popular addition.

[Tall Paul]

Trenacker & others,

@Trenacker:

combat engineers are obvious next sculpts.
––After closely studying HBG’s evolution of their Global Warfare-1939 and then their up-coming 1936 / 1939 version I think that there’s a very good chance of having Engineers / Naval “Sea Bees” to go along with their emphasis on several levels of
air field / air base / seaplane bases.

Tall Paul

[Trenacker]

Where can I learn more about their 1936 version?

[LHoffman]

@Trenacker:

Horse cavalry made an appearance for minor powers. I think it was certainly decisive in many of the secondary theaters.

Sure, I agree… I would say perhaps even tertiary theaters as opposed to secondary though. Axis & Allies does not have the scale to focus on third-rate theaters. Why would you have mounted cavalry in a given territory when you could more easily have a tank or mechanized infantry unit in the same place with better attack, defend and movement attributes?

@Trenacker:

I admit that the current set of units mostly accounts for all the strategic level considerations. Nonetheless, smaller “auxiliary” craft would still be neat. And combat engineers are no less tactical than, say, self-propelled artillery, which is a popular addition.

The difference with self-propelled artillery is that it is easily distinguished from normal artillery: you simply add +1 to movement capability. Adding SPA also does not further complicate the game as engineers would. You would need a whole new set of rules for engineers.

Not that this is impossible to implement or wrong to attempt, my point is only that SPA is far more seamlessly integrated to existing play at the strategic level than engineers would be.

What would you intend for the role of engineers to be? Does having their presence imply the use of fortifications also? If so, we are not entirely on the same page of what level of customization we are talking about.

[Trenacker]

@LHoffman:

Sure, I agree… I would say perhaps even tertiary theaters as opposed to secondary though. Axis & Allies does not have the scale to focus on third-rate theaters. Why would you have mounted cavalry in a given territory when you could more easily have a tank or mechanized infantry unit in the same place with better attack, defend and movement attributes?

I think it’s a question of placing horse cavalry in certain theaters at the start of the game. I agree that this is really viable only on the Global maps sold by HBG and the larger maps possible in TripleA.

@LHoffman:

The difference with self-propelled artillery is that it is easily distinguished from normal artillery: you simply add +1 to movement capability. Adding SPA also does not further complicate the game as engineers would. You would need a whole new set of rules for engineers.

Not that this is impossible to implement or wrong to attempt, my point is only that SPA is far more seamlessly integrated to existing play at the strategic level than engineers would be.

Sure, I would agree with that.

@LHoffman:

What would you intend for the role of engineers to be? Does having their presence imply the use of fortifications also? If so, we are not entirely on the same page of what level of customization we are talking about.

The other evening, I added Combat Engineers to my card list, with rules. They can clear the “minefields” improvement and also build both entrenchments and fortifications.

A lot of the secondary units offered by HBG, FMG, and other retailers are superfluous to the current game design and functionally redundant on the current maps. Their addition is also hampered by the d6 system. I’m envisioning something much larger, working with at least a d12, as well as a much larger map. My theory is that if people are willing to play a 10+ hour game, they will be willing to play a much longer one also.

[LHoffman]

@Trenacker:

I think it’s a question of placing horse cavalry in certain theaters at the start of the game. I agree that this is really viable only on the Global maps sold by HBG and the larger maps possible in TripleA.

I could understand having mounted cavalry units to begin the game… however not in A&A/HBG Global War. Again, the global scale is far too big to include such a (relatively) limited use unit. Now as for a much larger and more detailed game…

@Trenacker:

The other evening, I added Combat Engineers to my card list, with rules. They can clear the “minefields” improvement and also build both entrenchments and fortifications.

A lot of the secondary units offered by HBG, FMG, and other retailers are superfluous to the current game design and functionally redundant on the current maps. Their addition is also hampered by the d6 system. I’m envisioning something much larger, working with at least a d12, as well as a much larger map. My theory is that if people are willing to play a 10+ hour game, they will be willing to play a much longer one also.

… Now I see where the disconnect is. My frame of reference for ‘customization’ related to modifying A&A/HBG Global War roughly on the scale they currently are. That means D6, same/similar number of territories and general map size and global strategic level gameplay.

Your ambition is big and very cool. I would count myself among many who always want for a bigger map with more units, more territories and more detail. I am one of those who is willing to play a 10-hour game and would also play one far longer. But my design (for my own purposes) is a little more practical. I return to my comment about simplicity… Axis&Allies is already a relatively complex boardgame, but it is quite user-friendly with some experience. The more you add phases, space and options, the more you will slow down individual turns and the game. The simpler and more straightforward the rules and units are, the more fun the game will be. I do believe that there is a sweet spot of ideal gameplay between basic and gigantic. (Basic being the A&A Original/Revised scale and gigantic being something larger and more detailed than Global 40/Global War.)

Your “much larger map” will have to be truly gigantic if you intend to model fortifications, entrenchments and minefields. There may be limited ways to model an amalgamation of these things at the Global War scale, but you are suggesting something that is very tactical. You would almost have to have a game on the scale of a region (A&A D-Day) or an individual city to make minefields, entrenchments and engineers to be individual game components.

[Trenacker]

I’m thinking of some of the maps already seen on TripleA.

Minefields are perhaps too much. I think cavalry are quite viable for a game that covers the WW1 or interwar eras.

In this case, enrichments and fortifications will mean a fortified territory or a trench network of very large scale. More like a series of forts and strongpoints.

[LHoffman]

@Trenacker:

I’m thinking of some of the maps already seen on TripleA.

Minefields are perhaps too much. I think cavalry are quite viable for a game that covers the WW1 or interwar eras.

In this case, enrichments and fortifications will mean a fortified territory or a trench network of very large scale. More like a series of forts and strongpoints.

Been a very long time since I played TripleA, and I did not experiment much, so your horizons are broader than mine.

And I wondered after the fact if you meant fortifications on the scale of the Maginot Line or Atlantic Wall as opposed to something much more localized. That does make sense.

[Trenacker]

Some pieces and counters out of Memoir 44 and Tides of Iron have proved inspiring, although both are tactical games.

I don’t think it can be overstated to what degree adding new units is superfluous. I think that needs to be accepted up front. The current games are really complete in themselves. Even cruisers are really unnecessary. Probably tac bombers too. What’s really missing are transport aircraft.

The HBG map does include city regions. For example, the island of Singapore.

[LHoffman]

@Trenacker:

I don’t think it can be overstated to what degree adding new units is superfluous. I think that needs to be accepted up front. The current games are really complete in themselves. Even cruisers are really unnecessary. Probably tac bombers too. What’s really missing are transport aircraft.

Oh, I do agree. A&A was, and is, entirely playable in the Revised (2001/02) format. Tac bombers and cruisers are superfluous particularly for that version. However, with a larger map and more money to spend, they gain a level of usefulness even if they are not essential.

But, as customizers, everything we are doing is superfluous almost by definition.  :roll:

@Trenacker:

The HBG map does include city regions. For example, the island of Singapore.

Yes, but it is still an entire territory without urban definition. The territory may be named for the city-region itself, but it is exactly like any other territory on the board and geographically far larger than the actual city itself.

[Trenacker]

You’ve got it. If the territory is “Washington, D.C.,” then we’re approximating the National Capital Region, for example. In terms of fortifications, a Civil War-era analogy would be the ring of defensive forts and strongpoints around the capital city, which extended as far south as Northern Virginia.

Also, has anyone gotten to take a gander at the card list yet?

[Trenacker]

So… anybody? xD Is it that nobody’s had a chance to look, or nobody thinks it’s worthwhile?

[LHoffman]

@Trenacker:

Also, has anyone gotten to take a gander at the card list yet?

I assume these are the ones you sent to me?

[Trenacker]

No. I am referring to the list on the GoogeDrive to which I linked a few posts ago.

[LHoffman]

Oh, I will go back and take a look.

[Trenacker]

I’ve also begun to write up some house rules for use with the deck, and I’ll post that once I’ve made a bit more progress.

Again, the draft deck can be reviewed here.