Re: Field Marshal Games Pieces Project Discussion thread

@All-Encompassing-Goose

How’s the map going?

This is a preview of the rules:Rules for “The War of the Middle East”

I want to say that this game is simply for alternate future and for entertainment. I do not want to offend anybody, nor do I support the Islamic State. This game is fictional and I hope you enjoy.

Basic Rules: Using one of the 4 Powers; ISIS, The Iraq/ Syrian forces, The U.S.A., and The Republic of Turkey. Each power has originally controlled territories. Each Territory has IPCs, and with those IPCs you can buy units (see What are IPCs?). When capturing a territory you earn the IPCs if you hold the territory until the end of the turn. Then using those units you try to strategically win the game. ISIS has no allies except for Palestine being a aligned neutral. ISIS has 2 moves in one turn.
ISIS has big boost of IPCs because of the oil that they have access to. Each territory that has an oil marker that they control at any point in game they can use it to sell some oil for IPCs. You can save these oil points up to convert to IPCs.Each oil point you receive each turn can then be sold for 2 IPCs. If you sell an oil point on a turn, you must use the IPCs that you earned form the oil the same turn. Oil points on the board are located under each territories IPC count. Only ISIS can make money from oil. Only 15 IPCs can be used per 2 turns from oil. If the number of IPCs that you earn from oil goes over 15 IPCs per 2 turns then oil runs out and you cannot sell oil until the number of IPCs you earn (not from oil) cancels out.
ISIS earns 1 infantry each turn due to “Recruiting”.

You do not need to conduct combat to move into allied territory. Allied troops can defend together but not attack together.

hehehe… just when I thought I was towing the line, Paul walks over it.  8-)

Hey All,
I’ve had time to play a couple of games of the new Fortress America. Aside from the new pieces, the game is pretty much the same as the older version. Here are the most noteable differences:

The USA’s Partisan cards are spelled out quite a bit clearer than the old ones. These tell you EXACTLY what territories, units and actions are involved. Most of the cards are really the same as in the old deck, except of course one that deals with Colorado Springs, which wasn’t in the old game, but the new cards seem to spell out what you are supposed to do in more detail. They even tell you to discard the card after you are done.
After I compared the new and old cards, I can see that some of the old cards could have been misread. Specifically, the MAJOR AIRLIFT card. With the old game, I always played it by taking ALL US units anywhere on the board and moving them as I wished. The new MAJOR AIRLIFT card specifically says that you pick ONE territory and can move the units from that territory to anywhere on the board that doesn’t have enemy units (even enemy controlled, unoccupied city territories). So, the USA player is basically limited to a maximum of 5 military units that he/she can move around like this. While this can still be a big plus for the US, especially if the invaders have left a lot of cities unoccupied, it isn’t so devastating to the invaders that it might be a game ender. Since then, I have gone back and re-read the MAJOR AIRLIFT card in the old deck and realized that I think I have mis-played it all this time. I think it might have ALWAYS been just one territory of units, not ALL US units. The way it is worded could go either way.

Another big difference is that the Mobile Units are much more useful now. If you have a Mobile Unit and an Infantry (or Partisan for the US) in the same territory, that Mobile Unit can transport that Infantry/Partisan with it in the Maneuvers phase (normally Infantry/Partisans have no movement in the Maneuvers phase). This happens on a 1:1 ratio. So if you have 2 Infantry and 1 Mobile Unit, then only 1 Infantry may travel with the Mobile Unit. That makes Mobile Units much more valuable now. In the old game, they were more or less mobile cannon fodder to me.

Finally, the biggest difference is that now there are cards for the Invaders. Each Invader has a deck of 8 cards that can give them certain advantages if certain conditions are met. During the reinforcement phase, each Invader must decide to get 8 new units or get only 5 new units and draw a card. Each card has certain advantages which could boost their forces’ movement or attacking power or cause a detriment to the US’s abilities (like depriving them of the laser attacks for a round). To gain these advantages, certain conditions must be met, like holding certain cities, or simply a certain number of cities and/or holding certain resource territories (agriculture, mineral, oil). Some cards are one time use and others are “Remain In Play” which the invader that holds that card can use even if the original conditions are no longer met. For example: Say the Western Invader draws a “Remain In Play” card and the conditions are that he has to own Los Angeles, 2 Agricultures and 1 Mineral. Then later on he loses one of the Agricultures, or the Mineral, or even Los Angeles, he can STILL PLAY THAT CARD. Also, even once the Invader’s reserves are depleted, they can still draw cards during the reinforcements phase. If you get a card for which you haven’t met the conditions yet, you simply keep it face down in front of you until you can use it. So, theoretically, Invaders could possibly use several cards in the same turn, provided all the conditions are met for each card.
Frankly, while some of the advantages in the cards are pretty good, I think overall they are more of a detriment to the invaders as well as the overall game experience. As an invader, you might end up becoming too fixated on trying to accomplish the conditions on a card so that you can gain that advantage that you end up not doing other things that would better defeat the USA forces. As for the game, it really takes more time for the invaders to keep checking their cards to see if they meed the requirements. Also, losing that 3 extra pieces each turn so you can draw a card may not seem like a lot, but I think it could be just enough for the USA player to get just enough of an edge that they don’t lose all 18 cities. The longer this game goes, the more forces the US will have and the less the Invaders will have, thus it will be that much harder to gain the 18 cities and defeat the US. Plus if you keep getting cards that you can’t use, then is it really worth losing those extra 3 units each turn. It seems to me like a lot of the conditions, while not impossible, are pretty hard for the Invaders to accomplish. For Example: there are two or three cards for the Eastern Invader where one of the conditions is an Oil Resource. The nearest one for them is clear over by Memphis. That’s a lot of territory to conquer.

Well, there is my report. It’s a pretty cool game, but VERY similar to the old game. If you have the original, unless you just really want the new pieces and map or really want to try out the new Invader cards, I would say save your money and play the original some more becasue except for the few points above, they are basically the same game.

@Variable:

Everything about it is here:

http://www.legiongaming.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1&products_id=2

Oops - yeah, forgot to post that link.  Was hoping to see if any playtesters out there had any first-hand experience with it, or more pics.

any thoughts?

Map nearing completion

A few rules different from normal A&A

The only units that can shoot down planes are AA, Art, Planes and BB

The original setup is

Every power starts with 200 Ipc of which 40 must be spent on air units, 40 must be spent on land units and 40 must be spent on naval units.

If Tasmania is added they start with 250 ipc of which 50 must be spent on each type of unit

Tow in you need to control

either
6,7,8 Vcs of which one must be in NZ
9,10 Vcs of which 2 must be in NZ
11 of which three must be in NZ

please post whatever rules you got written down. Its hard to follow strategy for games we don’t know the rules for, unless you are doing NOTHING except using the complete AAE rules for AAR verbatum, which still requires some rules to conform it to AAR.