Infantry

@TG:

“The longest wargame I played was a Civil War game from Eagle games( I’m always giving these guys pops).”

Wow, that’s great. Most of my games are short (well, not short, just not 24 hours). How do you guys play? Usually as the Confederacy, I split my forces into two forces, the main force to go after DC and hold off the brunt of the Union forces trying to make a breakthrough to Richmond. Then I have a secondary Calvary force slice through the West (the Spirit of Albert Sidney), ringing up cities along the way. The final end run results in joint invasion of the North, sealing the game. Sorry, I don’t play the Federalist Yankees unless I have to. 8)

“almost sounds like advanced 3rd reich, a very old ww2 sim board game.”

At least, 3rd Reich is a good game. The North African Campaign is more like solitaire – by the time you finish your turn, the opponent will already be napping.
:)

Well. we use most of the optional rules except advanced initiative. Its a little to powerful.
But States rights for the south limits, as you know, to where you can place units and even which ones you can buy.

Our game was very back and forth with no one really pulling ahead, until a big battle in the Chattanooga, where my friend had a huge army; 18 Infantry 6 cannons a leader and 5 cavalry with 1 Elite. They were in the city defending and I attacked with almost every unit I had( I had been gathering them outside the city for turns and turns).
Anyhow, when my friend’s flank( the North ) broke his huge army had nowhere to retreat to as I cut off his route.
He lost everything and I got his cannons.
That was the turning point in our game. But it still took another 8 hours of playing to bring it to an end.
I, of coarse, won 8) .

The only thing negative I can say about the game is, you don’t really have to defend most of your territory if you are the Rebels.
It’s easy to shift your units around into a massive force that can reach out in a number of directions.

However, the Union has the advantage of a larger industrial and unit output, so us Southerns will need every infantry we can get our grubby hands on win out. But like you said, the South does have the advantage of being able to win the game by just capturing 5 or 6 cities. A trick I like to use is take my main force and strike forward at the New England to string up victories while the North is still marshaling its army with inexperienced leaders.

Emancipate the Slaves! :P

@TG:

World War2: European Theater of operations? Sorry never, heard of it. However, lots of WWII tactical simulators do take a Loooooonngg time to complete. Was it made by SPI? I remember they made the Campaign for North Africa,

Sorry, i have left that game in germany, so i can’t tell who produced it.
From the complexity it seesm to be between the one you mentioned and A&A.

Another nice story that a friend of mine told me:
They played ADnD on a weekly basis at another friends house.
He had a game set up covering one of the overlord beach sectors (Omaha? Gold? Dunno…).
The second time they came along and saw the boad again, they asked wether actually anything had happened. The other friend made big eyes: “of course, here, can’t you see, this MG-position has been taken out!” … i haven’t heard that they actually declared someone the winner in that game.

A board game based on D-Day!? I dunno, would sound more like a salughter to me.

I have a Civilization 2 scenario that’s the D-Day invasion. It really is basically slaughter.

Another board game (Which has finally arrived here), which IMHO is the best game ever:
Junta!!!

You play a family in the Republica de los bananas, and the winner is the family that has the most money in its swiss bank account at the end of the game…… Long live el presidente g !! :)

Well, I stand by the fact that no one I know has even completed that game, let alone one turn! :P

But really, some of the rules are tedious:
“Do you want to assign drivers for you tanks?”
“Well duh, you think they’re going to drive themselves!?”
“Do you want to feed your troops?”
“No, I think I’ll let them all strave – OF COURSE I"LL FEED MY $@$%TROOPS!”

And you know something is wrong is when the errata sheet is longer than the rulebook for most games!

But I like discussions like these, I had my share of bad games:
One was called “The Plot to Assassinate Hitler.” Sounds interesting, right? That’s until you find out that the entire game takes place in Hitler’s mind(!) and the producers even admit, “This game may not represent the political situation in Germany at the time.” The whole game either ends with you being interrogated by SS Officers “in the lower corridors of Hitler’s brain” or Hitler jumping on the gravy train to spend his last days in the Bahamas! Any takers?

@F_alk:

Another board game (Which has finally arrived here), which IMHO is the best game ever:
Junta!!!

You play a family in the Republica de los bananas, and the winner is the family that has the most money in its swiss bank account at the end of the game…… Long live el presidente g !! :)

well wicked game this! pretty simplistic game… but all the fun is in the backstabbing!

Has anyone played the board game " Zombies"? It’s good.
basically, you and up to 5 other players run around a city, trying to escape the zombie infested streets, looking the heli-pad.
Kill as many Zombies as you can, shotgun, gasoline and chainsaw.
Wicked!

Sounds like my kind of game! :D

sounds like resident evil/lawnmower man :D all in one handy little game. woohoo im all for

Throw in Bruce Campbell from the Evil Dead series and you got yourself something! :D

This is going back up this thread a bit, but it’s not my fault I missed it. he he he

“I wonder if you added “maintenance” costs on to stuff if that would work”

This is something some old A&A buddies of mine worked out this issue.

Well, the way I always resist the need to ‘twist the rules’ or ‘customize’ anything is to remember that this game is the grandest of scale. That stuff, like maintenance, may seem like it needs to be accounted for actually ‘is’ accounted for. Just because it’s not channeled through the IPC’s or something we as players have to work out doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. The maintenence that isn’t ‘shipped in’ comes off the land controlled. Notice that Italy is mearly an extention of Germany and not independant and that China is the same thing as well; this is a game honed finely by it’s great usage of what I might call “global generalization”. Industrial production values of the territory don’t represent everything the land has to offer, only what it offers in the respect of the items we purchase from round to round.

This can be extended to the notion that when the numbers of infantry become hugely unbelieveable, it’s not the ‘number of actual troops’ that is being added to but ‘the combat effectiveness of all of them’. So, in terms of ‘generality’, when you increase a number of infantry units from 1 to 50, it’s not exactly 50 times the number of men. Perhaps it’s mearly 10 times the number of men, but are provided with much more supplies and sophistation than there was originally. See what I’m saying?

Anyway, anytime you find yourself wishing to account for every nagging thing you think should be adjusted to make the game ‘more realistic’, I suggest you resist. This game scale of warfare doesn’t notice seasons, resupplies, or school districts. It’s a game intentionally made generalized so we can enjoy a very realistic representation of easily controlling all the superpowers global domination of one another in simple rotating rounds of play.

It works fine the way it is.

Heck the way I see it, one more big thing not ‘accounted for’ in the scale of the game is “nationism” and how much it can affect things. I’d say that a territory under enemy control ‘should’ turn up less production. But, I trust the representation as provided being good enough to enjoy, without the need to go turning the rules on it’s ear.

You think this might call for a new thread?

Nice….good post.

@TG:

Throw in Bruce Campbell from the Evil Dead series and you got yourself something! :D

The games box cover is a Bruce Campbell look a like.

Heres a link for the game http://www.frothersunite.com/UnclEvl/Zombies/Zombies.html#WIHAW

once again, the Jedi is wise. I was not serious about incurring maintenance charges, but you provided excellent reasons as to why they would not be necessary. There are a few things that bug me, but not much, and i have learned to consider that each “unit” is a basic grouping of them (platoon, battallion, whatever). So maybe a battleship is really, like, 3 of them, and a sub is a “bunch 'o subs” etc?
enough crypt.

Thank you both.

:D

I agree that, in harmony with the ‘grand scale’ theme, that each unit is like a ‘division’ or ‘small fleet’ or ‘wing of fighters’, whatever the case may be. I also think that just having two or more of that item doesn’ t ‘neccessarily’ imply that there are twice as many in number, that as a matter of perception and not math, that they could be just simply more well maintained, supplied and armed.

That makes it more believable when a game progresses to having 50 red chips in Karillia and Eastern Europe, that it is in fact not implied to be every man, woman, and child enlisted wth a rifle and nobody’s left at home to be defended. You know what I mean?

@TheJediCharles:

Thank you both.

:D

I agree that, in harmony with the ‘grand scale’ theme, that each unit is like a ‘division’ or ‘small fleet’ or ‘wing of fighters’, whatever the case may be. I also think that just having two or more of that item doesn’ t ‘neccessarily’ imply that there are twice as many in number, that as a matter of perception and not math, that they could be just simply more well maintained, supplied and armed.

That makes it more believable when a game progresses to having 50 red chips in Karillia and Eastern Europe, that it is in fact not implied to be every man, woman, and child enlisted wth a rifle and nobody’s left at home to be defended. You know what I mean?

I do. I completely agree with your view.

@TheJediCharles:

Well, the way I always resist the need to ‘twist the rules’ or ‘customize’ anything is to remember that this game is the grandest of scale. That stuff, like maintenance, may seem like it needs to be accounted for actually ‘is’ accounted for. Just because it’s not channeled through the IPC’s or something we as players have to work out doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. The maintenence that isn’t ‘shipped in’ comes off the land controlled. Notice that Italy is mearly an extention of Germany and not independant and that China is the same thing as well; this is a game honed finely by it’s great usage of what I might call “global generalization”. Industrial production values of the territory don’t represent everything the land has to offer, only what it offers in the respect of the items we purchase from round to round.

This can be extended to the notion that when the numbers of infantry become hugely unbelieveable, it’s not the ‘number of actual troops’ that is being added to but ‘the combat effectiveness of all of them’. So, in terms of ‘generality’, when you increase a number of infantry units from 1 to 50, it’s not exactly 50 times the number of men. Perhaps it’s mearly 10 times the number of men, but are provided with much more supplies and sophistation than there was originally. See what I’m saying? ?

A very valid point. And here’s a good response (at least IMHO) to such an excellent post… However, certain questions arise. Should the troops near the end of the war have the most “combat effectiveness” due to advances in technology and tactics? Also, I think this follows the flow of the game. The game takes place in 1942, which isn’t exactly the peak of wartime enlistment, so as the game progresses the armies become larger and larger (USA being a fine example). And near the end of the game they start to shrink (at least for the loosers). Does this mean the late game armies had less supplies and sophistation compared with armies near the middle of game? No, as for Germany (in the real war), their troops became more effective (in terms of weaponry and equipment) but lost due to numerical inferiority. I think this is what the game is suppose to mirror, at least from my perspective (which might be totally wrong).

@TheJediCharles:

It works fine the way it is.

I agree, Axis and Allies is a great beginners game if you’re looking to “step up” from Risk. However, after continual playing games 50-100, you start finding players execute the same moves over and over again for maximum efficiency. Now players will change their playing style (maybe I’ll go Japan First this time or maybe a IC in Brazil will do the trick), but if you’re playing professionally, there’s usually only one way to go in order to compete in the field. What you have is a repeat of the last game (and the future game), except the outcome of the dice are different. This is when the game becomes stagnant and remedial. This is when it’s time to whip out the “Rogaine Solution.” What is the Rogaine Solution? It can be any number of things, like switching the teams around, including bidding, introducing new techs and strategies, adding new rules and changing old ones. Basically, you want to make the game as new and enjoyable as the last without sacrificing the overall impact of the game. And I see no problem with this.

A great example would be Eagle Game’s Civil War (sorry, but it’s probably the best game on the market next to A&A). This game includes two rule sets, one “basic” and the other “advanced.” What does this mean? Well after you get your feet wet and grasped the fundamentals of the game, maybe you should try something more “challenging” or inject a boost new “gameplay.” Before when you had games usually ended before three hours, they now drag on for days – even weeks! And best of all, those extra hours are some of the most exhilarating of your gaming life (just ask any Civil War player). Extra hours that probably would’ve rather be spent playing the “basic” game over and over again. Rules is a testament of the game’s replayability.

@TheJediCharles:

Anyway, anytime you find yourself wishing to account for every nagging thing you think should be adjusted to make the game ‘more realistic’, I suggest you resist. This game scale of warfare doesn’t notice seasons, resupplies, or school districts. It’s a game intentionally made generalized so we can enjoy a very realistic representation of easily controlling all the superpowers global domination of one another in simple rotating rounds of play.

And about the scale of the game, indeed it is huge. But some people do like micromanagement, which can be a great boon (or disaster if you’re not careful) to the game. Even with the size of the game, some factors do have to be taken for, weather (or seasons as you call it) being an example. Do you think the Russian winters only existed in one particular part of Eastern Europe? No, it extended and encompassed the whole Russian Front. Now does that mean every minute detail should be taken in account for (ie Campaign for North Africa)? I mean who really wants to spend their time figuring out “pre-battle planning,” “battle planning,” and finally battling” or keeping a log sheet of every single units detailing everything from exp. Points (with custom dice modifier) to amount of ammunition (urg)? Of course not. Board games were meant for player interaction, and when you find yourself playing more against “the system” than your opponent, something is seriously wrong here. However, weather rules do take into account player interaction. It creates suspense between Russia and Germany, as they nervously steer down each other’s stack until the weather subsides. Or maybe one player will decide to “push his luck” against the weather and exploit the lack of enemy forces, unsuspectingly transferred to other fronts for the time being.

@TheJediCharles:

Heck the way I see it, one more big thing not ‘accounted for’ in the scale of the game is “nationism” and how much it can affect things. I’d say that a territory under enemy control ‘should’ turn up less production. But, I trust the representation as provided being good enough to enjoy, without the need to go turning the rules on it’s ear.

Before trying out any rule, you must weigh the benefits with the possible consequences. Your nationalism idea would be a nice, logical addition to the game. However, technically, wouldn’t this mean that the Axis start out with a reduced income since a lot of their starting territories were former Allied countries? And shouldn’t Allied territory liberated from the Axis (Western Europe and the Phillipines being good examples) produce more than their stated NP value due to an upsurge in nationalism? An interesting possibility that must be weighed….