Utilities and Accessories for Axis and Allies games

@all-encompassing-goose

The no IPC scenario should not be combined with free for all (rather, I haven’t tried it yet). What happened was Japan beat China with only a few ground units left, and the allied and Japanese fleets annihilated each other. The US was able to land in China though and worked with the Soviets to retake most of northeastern China by the end of the game. On the Eastern Front Germany and Italy waited for the Soviets to exhaust themselves. It was tough going at first but once the Soviets were broken they had almost nothing left to give.

Overall in this game whoever has the last unit wins, ground units were crucial and any mistake or bad luck is heavily decisive.

@The-Janus said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:

@RogerCooper said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:

is there any plausible reason to attack a major neutral except maybe USSR attacking the Arab league?

It’s kinda been theorized that USSR might want to attack China, in certain situations.

If China isn’t defending North Korea, or worse, if they’re actively letting NATO move units through their territory, the USSR might be better off attacking.
The other thing is that the complication table is weighted more toward China’s outrage than the other 2 majors, so if the USSR has the ability to send nukes, it’s also generally assumed that they will, whereas the US is less likely to use them; in a long enough game, that will swing China towards favoring NATO, so the USSR might pre-empt that at some point.

The other option is as a game-ender, towards obtaining an economic victory. In fact, such a thing is probably pretty impossible without invading most of the neutrals on the Eurasian continent.

P.S. I still think modeling neutral contributions as N.O.'s is an option to keep in mind

Implementing the complication table would be difficult. The game rules already suggest dropping the complication table as an optional rule. Note that it would be possible to use having a nuclear weapon as trigger but not using a nuclear weapon. I think that in practice the high cost of nuclear weapons is more of a deterrent than the nuclear complication rules.

Using National Objectives for neutral contributions is fine.

It depends on what “work” means – in other words, on whether players would consider a Kursk scenario appealing.  Conceptually, Kursk would be similar to A&A D-Day (minus the water) in the sense that the battle was fundamentally a frontal assault on a heavily-defended static position, and similar to A&A Battle of the Bulge in the sense that it would involve ground forces driving into enemy lines, but different from both games in the sense that from the German point of view Kursk was a pincer movement aimed at pinching off a salient, and that from the Russian point of view it was a two-stage offensive-defensive battle.  Personally I think it has good potential to make an interesting game, if it’s designed properly.

Still no replies?!

no way. That map is bigger than huge.

Looking it over it does seem that your game is impressive.  I’ve always tried to keep up with Imp on what was going on because I really liked their East & West game, but it looks like I might have to give up on the Great War.

@GeZe:

good,
but i’ll probebly be overloaded with homework till about hmmmmm, grade 12.

ouch…