Axis & Allies Global Design Flaws Part 3

@Charles:

For several years, my team and I have been working on a 1945 setup called “The Game to End All Games.”  It follows what would have happened if Russia remained neutral and Great Britain fell.  China and India are considered to have signed a separate peace   The main Axis power is Germany which controls most of Western Europe (Eastern Europe, Russia, and mainland Asia are out of play), Iceland, French Equatorial Africa, Gibraltar, and Nigeria and Gold Coast.  Italy Controls Egypt and East Africa and is poised to march to South Africa with a German expedition to Free French Cameroon and Vichy (a new minor power) troops supporting.  South America has United and is a new playable ally.  German navies are ready to attack the Americas anywhere.  Meanwhile, Japan is planning to attack Australia and Hawaii and Alaska.

For potential inspiration, you might want to have a look at interesting (but short; it’s only a page long) essay by David Fromkin in the book “What If? : The World’s Foremost Military Historians Imagine What Might Have Been”.  The essay is called “Triumph of the Dictators”, and it points out that in early June 1941, just before Barbarossa, most of continental Europe and large portions of Asia were under the control of the Axis powers and of either their allies or of powers with which Germany and Japan had non-aggression pacts.  It paint a grim picture of the U.S. and of the surviving democracies as being (if I remember Fromkin’s phrase correctly) isolated in a hostile world.

I have created an Axis & Allies variant inspired by the simultaneity mechanics of Diplomacy.  It is an online game with all the game state stored in the server, so the players use a simple web browser to play.  The manner of play I envision is each player or possibly each team uses a physical board to track the game, and the online game provides the interface to create orders for the units, shows the outcome of conflicts, and provides an interface to execute and settle multi-unit battles.  Having a physical board and pieces isn’t necessary, as the game is tracked on the server, but I expect it is more fun to play along with physical units.  The current user interface is crude, but I think it’s sophisticated enough to be effective.  I’m looking for someone to help me play-test the game and provide feedback.  I will likely create a new user interface to overlay the existing system, but I need to actually play it a bit with a real opponent to know what direction to go with that.  If you are interested, you can read the docs here:

coyotebones.org/concurrent_AA/docs

if you are further interested in seeing the interface and play-testing with me, send an email to concurrent-aa-play-request@coyotebones.org.  Please send from a real email address, as I will register the address for your login to use the system.  Include in the message a nickname you would like to have on the system so that your email address is not exposed to other players.

@Arreghas:

You are indeed proving to me that changing any rule set is complex indeed and requires very thoughtful analysis.

Yes, that’s quite correct.  An important point to remember is that a complex game such as Global 1940 is similar to other complex devices (such as automotive vehicles): they are systems consisting of multiple interrelated parts which are designed to work together in a particular way and which reflect many design choices and compromises.  Sometimes it’s possible to make minor or even major alterations to some of those components without affecting significantly the performance the overall system, but sometimes even a minor adjustment to a single critical component can wreck the whole thing.  (Take as an example the recent Galaxy Note 7 debacle.  There’s been speculation that Samsung may have changed the electrolyte in the lithium-ion batteries to something less stable, or that it may have gone too far in thinning the separator which keeps the positive and negative sides apart so that the battery doesn’t short-circuit and overheat.)  And design considerations have to take into account the fundamental question of what purpose the system is supposed to serve.  A luxury limousine, a Formula One race-car and a semi-trailer truck are all automotive vehicles, but they’re all optimized to do specific jobs and they all place different leves of emphasis on different capabilities such as passenger comfort, baggage / cargo-holding capacity, speed, fuel consumption efficiency and so forth.

[Copied from my post in your other thread on this subject, located here: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37073.0]

Depicting a single regiment would be problematic in terms of game scale.  In general terms, a game on the scale of Global 1940 represents (admittedly in very abstract terms) the actions of units that are mostly the size of army groups and fleets – and, furthermore, of army groups and fleets which have no specific identity other than their nationality.  It would be hard to justify saying that one particular regiment-sized unit, with a specific name, ought to be added to the game; by that rationale, there are hundreds of other regiments that could be added too.

The obvious exception to the above principle is the single fighter which represents the Flying Tiger squadron in China…so it’s not an ironclad rule that units smaller than army groups and fleets are never represented in the game.  It can be argued, however, that the Flying Tigers are a special case because of their high profile, and because in the game China lacks aviation forces of its own.  China doesn’t lack infantry, however, so adding a USMC unit doesn’t bring anything distinctive to China’s forces.

Additionally, Global 1940 has no rules that govern riverine operations – which is understandable, because the game map doesn’t depict any rivers.  Even the Saint Lawrence, which is huge in real life, isn’t depicted: on the map, it looks like a strip of land.  There are a few lakes depicted, plus a few canals and narrow straights, but no rivers.  So a river patrol unit in China would literally have nowhere to go.

It’s possible that the designers may have intentionally left the door open for such a variation.  I may be reading too much into this, but note that the game is called “A&A WWI: 1914”, not simply “A&A WWI”.  On one level, you could say that the “1914” part is redundant unless it’s a potential way of distinguishing the game from hypothetical versions set in 1915, 1916, or 1917…and even possibly 1918, though I think that one’s too much of a stretch.

On the other hand, leaving the door open does not in itself prove that the designers have any actual plans to make use of it.  So who knows.

Another way to consider this is the BOTB/D-DAY style models, were units can occupy the same territory.  With one round of ensuing combat.

If units become totally encircled… they can’t move and operate poorly.

Stay-Puft Marshmellow Man  :evil:

re-puffs 1 hit point per turn!
(all that lead eventually just pops right back out of his body with all of that padding  :D)

the debate was never settled. i said why i didn’t think it should be liberty ships are no one rebuted. i never thought US DD’s were on the table, it was Essex CVs (cheap because rushed into production and fast) that I thought had the lead spot.