If you were to design your own Axis & Allies game…. ?

@Vance:

Suppose you have the time, money and brain power to design your own Axis & Allies game, what would it be like?

IF? I don’t think there is a an A&A game that has come out that I haven’t monkeyed with the set-up, the rules, unit cost and value, ect. Some games I have changed some games so much that they bare little resemblance to the original product.

But an original idea? I would try to open the game up more, if that makes any sense. A game where any first move could, can, and dose work is a game with real freedom for the players. The biggest problem with A&A games (especially A&AG 1940) is that opening moves become set in stone, with little room for tactical innovation, that I think some players get turned off from playing. A game that encourages players to play to their own style an inclinations, to put their own “mark” on a playable nation if you will, would be something I would (an do) strive for in an A&A game of my own

In one of my 39 global 12 die advanced game has it were you deploy your troops anywhere you want in your countries territory at start of game in a certain order for each country and game starts with 600 pieces. But I think the draw back on that is if you have new  players just learning, they will not deploy troops in the right places so it helps to have setup charts until they learn to play and read more on the history of WWII and how it works. Now the game is starting to come out with different pieces to add to game, 40 Global. 2 new games coming out and add it to 40 Global game. My 2 games have basically all the stuff that was used during war. Its great that HBG and FMG are coming out with these new pieces, because now I won’t have to paint these pieces that are already in my games. Just replace them with there pieces when they become available. So when you have all these different pieces to choose from and add any kind of NA and Tech to spice up the game, It doesn’t get as boring with setup charts.

@Clyde85:

A game where any first move could, can, and dose work is a game with real freedom for the players. The biggest problem with A&A games (especially A&AG 1940) is that opening moves become set in stone, with little room for tactical innovation, that I think some players get turned off from playing. A game that encourages players to play to their own style an inclinations, to put their own “mark” on a playable nation if you will, would be something I would (an do) strive for in an A&A game of my own

I understand what you mean. That’s kind of the problem with playing a game that’s based on historical events. The first move, perhaps even the first few moves, are set. With pieces being placed in certain areas from the start, players don’t have a lot of choice as to what to do with them. That’s an advantage of games like RISK where the starting setup varies from game to game.
One could do something really odd, like Germany doing absolutely NO attacking round 1, and see what happens.

@Vance:

Here is mine:

Axis & Allies 1946
A 3 player game set in an alternate history where the USA failed to develop the atom bomb or decided not to use it, so they have to go into the islands of Japan and fight it out.  Players control Japan,  Russia, or America.  The power that occupies Tokyo at the end of round 20 wins the game (if each round is 3 months that would be 1950ish).  Russia and America start out as allies but their goal is to take Japan for themselves.  They start out using each other to help eliminate Japan’s ability to make war, but only because they both know they can’t do it by themselves; they will declare war on each other as soon as they think it is to their own advantage.  Manchuria is a pro-Soviet neutral with an enormous stock of infantry and North Korea is a pro-Allies neutral with a few infantry and an IC.

America starts the game with large naval and air forces at bases in Okinawa and Iwojima, plus they control South Korea and its IC.  There are no IPCs in this game but America can mobilize up to 3 units of any kind per turn at Seoul.  America can also mobilize more units if they can capture or activate other ICs (ie if they capture a minor IC they can mobilize 3 there plus the 3 in Seoul).  There are several sea zones that may be convoy raided to reduce the number of American units that can be mobilized in Seoul or other US-occupied ICs.  There are no IPCs in the game because it is assumed that both USA and USSR are limited by supply rather than by industrial production (ie limitless materiel coming in by rail or by sea from elsewhere); Japan’s production has been reduced to cottage industries by this stage of the war.  Note that transports must be used to get ground units from Korea or Vladivostock to Japanese islands.  New ICs, naval and air bases cannot be built but SBR damage can be repaired.

Russia starts out with a very small military presence but has a major IC in Vladivostock that can mobilize up to 10 units of any type per turn, minus any SBR damage.  President MacArthur (congress actually) has forbidden US forces to attack originally Soviet territories using ground troops unless the Soviet Union activates Manchuria.  SBR damage to Vladivostock or other Soviet controlled ICs is repaired for “free” at the end of Russia’s turn, but the number of units mobilized is declared at the start of the turn and may be reduced by SBR damage.

Japan starts out with some air units, a few subs and surface ships, and enormous reserves of infantry plus the odd AA, mech, artillery or armor unit.  Each city also starts with a fixed number of civilians who can be mobilized into infantry (eg a small city like Hiroshima might start the game with a stack of 30 unmobilized civilians; a big city like Tokyo might have 500, etc.)  Each city has either a minor IC that can convert up to 3 civilians into infantry or a major IC that can convert up to 10.  The number of civilians that can be called up is reduced by SBR damage.  Damage points can be removed at a cost of 2 civilians per damage point. Again there are no IPCs in the game to keep track of, but losses are measured in civilian deaths.  Civilians attack at 0, defend at 0, have mobility of 1, and must be taken as the last casualty (like transports).  When all defending military units have been removed from combat, any remaining civilians stay in the territory and become the property of the occupying power (sometimes it might be worth attacking with less force in order to spare them).  The occupier may choose to keep them alive or to hold a mass execution to prevent them possibly falling back into enemy hands.

A defending Japanese force may choose to use some civilians as “militia” (human shields).  For each defending military unit, 1 civilian unit in the same territory may be instantly converted into militia.  They are then considered military units that can be taken as casualties before other military units.  Once converted into militia, these units attack at 0, defend at 1, move 1, and may be taken as POWs. They may never be converted back into civilians or into infantry.

The allies may lay siege to Japanese cities.  If all territories and sea zones surrounding a city are occupied by enemy units at the start of Japan’s turn, no civilians can be converted into infantry.  Also, Japan must beg the power(s) that control the territories surrounding the city to not blockade food and other supplies getting in to civilians.  If the allies choose to declare a blockade, the civilian population will be reduced at the end of japan’s turn, unless they can liberate at least one adjacent territory or sea zone and break the siege.  The number of civilians lost will be 1d6 times the size of the city’s IC.  If it is a minor the size is 3; if it is a major the size is 10 (for instance if a city with a major IC is blockaded japan will roll 1 dice at the end of its turn and if they get a 4 then 40 civilians die.  If it were a minor city then 12 civilians would die).  If they want to, the allies may choose not to blockade the city and allow Japanese civilians to not die of mass starvation.

If America or Russia take a Japanese city they can use Japanese civilians as slave labor.  If the IC has SBR damage, the damage may be repaired at a cost of 2 civilians per damage point.  In addition, the number of American or Soviet units that can be mobilized at an undamaged IC is increased by 1 for every 4 civilians expended in makeshift labor camps.  For example 5 units could be mobilized at an undamaged minor IC at a cost of 8 civilians; if that IC also had 2 damage to repair it would cost 12 civilians to mobilize the 5 units.  No units can be mobilized if the IC is completely damaged and there are no civilians to repair it.  The city is considered dead; there is nothing left but rotting corpses and a burned out factory that had been turned into a labor/death camp by the Americans.  Civilian prisoners from elsewhere may be marched in there to repair it though.

Soviet and American ICs in Seoul or Vladivostock can also use POWs as slave labor.  POWs may be taken anytime a defender rolls a 6. (see Gargantua’s Darkside POW rule in the house rules forum).  Any POWs taken by Japan are disposed of by mass execution.  Mass executions are performed simply removing the murdered POWs or civilians from the board.

Japan can also use its few remaining air units as kamikazes against allied ships.  In a Kamikaze strike, Japan picks the ship it wants to target, rolls the dice for the plane and if it gets a hit the ship is damaged or sunk and Japan’s plane is automatically lost.  The defender does not have to roll.

Japan has an ace up its sleeve: biological weapons can be deployed anytime Japan attacks or is under attack.  The weapon is deployed at the end of combat movement phase.  Since the resulting epidemic is not selective and all humans in the area may be affected, the numbers of American, Soviet, Japanese and civilian units are each reduced by 1d6 times 10% (rounded down).  Each power removes its units before combat and may choose which units to lose (usually infantry).  Japan has enough stockpile of biological weapons to deploy them 3 times throughout the game.

Not to be outdone, the allies can use their bomber forces as a weapon of mass destruction.  Rather than targeting a base or IC for a strategic bombing, residential areas of cities may be targeted and all casualties inflicted upon civilians.  The number of civilians lost in a firebombing is 1d6 +2 per bomber.  The application of napalm and white phosphorous bombs against civilians is considered a war crime.

Darkside rules (see posts by Gargantua in House Rules forum) apply to the USA and they can lose the war if they accumulate too many war crimes points.  There is no such restriction on the Soviet Union.

that sounds epic
I would make a global 39 or 43 maybe an alternate one

You might want to throw in a few British and French naval units too.  The British established a British Pacific Fleet in late 1944; the Wikipedia article on the subject gives further details.  The French battleship Richelieu served with the British Eastern Fleet in 1944 and 1945, and was in the Pacific just after the Japanese surrender (notably at Singapore and in French Indochina).

I always wished you could break sections down into larger teams.

IE, instead of playing ALL of Germany, you played as the supreme commander,  and had a leiutenant or two, to manage troops in theatres like the Eastern Front, or the Atlantic,  in side games.

Or if ontop of the regular game, you had a partner or LT,who played a side game against the other powers - like, the battle for advancing technology,  and you played through a rounds simulatneously.

I get that the logistics of something like this would be of regretable magnitude,  but the concept of players, games, and factors out of your control, contributing to or marring your ending success, always seemed like an exciting avenue to explore.

Start with a small module of course… like Kurt Godels research game or something,  so long as it was entertaining, why not do it?

Been there, done that.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=19860.0

Available at HBG for download or print as well:

http://www.historicalboardgaming.com/Custom-Map–Europe-at-War_p_703.html

Using FMG’s Italian pieces.

I’m quite proud of the game, just hasn’t gotten much publicity.

I designed both maps to link as well.  Let’s see if I get more interest for this through HBG.

That game looks pretty sexy Jim, not going to lie.

Sometimes sex isn’t enough to get the interest.

I need to pump it up more.

In either case, sticking to the thread, this was started years and years ago.  It had been a labour of love.  Things I wanted in a game, while keeping complexity down (and playing time).

I found that more rules just made things tedious.  But I did want to include the following:

realistic convoy rules
terrain rules
interception rules
realistic naval movement
supply rules
general cards
realistic build rules

I think I did all I set out to do.

Supplies, Terrain, and General cards definetly interests me, and I like the depth without the complexity as well.

Consider some revisions to include new units? Like Tac’s and Mec’s?  Or any of the soon to be FMG pieces?

Also, have you checked out the Global 1939 variant from HBG?  I saw the map at the FMG convention, it was pretty awesome.

I have tac and mec as well, but the tac work differently than AA.  In fact, my air units work differently.

I have seen HBG’s game, but naturally I think mine is superior, as I created it.

I’ve always dreamt of a game with Finland in it and I’ve always dreamt of a game wich has a scenario as taking a city.

Let’s combine these 2 and for example take Leningrad as the map. It would be divided in a lot of blocks and areas, parks and stuffs like that. The city will have it’s own units.

Tall buildings, blockades, bunkers, blockhouses etc etc. These will be used to add defense capabilities to your infrantry, artillery and tank units.

They can all be bombed and turned into rubble. Blockades will block the movement of tanks. The attacker will have to make a choice of bombing buildings or trying to capture them without bombing so they can be used in an offensive role (for example artillery in these zones can make a pre-emptive bombardment (like in an amphibious assault) to an adjacent zone.

Every few rounds winter kicks in and the Russians can use the frozen lake to bring in reinforcements etc.

It would be cool to use these axis and allies pieces in a simulation where street to street fighting is simulated.

And with this battle, you can add in the Fins :D altho they helped with the encirclement, they never made an attempt to attack the city… but what the heck, this is a game and the Fins have yet to be presented in an axis and allies game.

definately! Would be cool to have units with skis under them :D

@Rhey:

I’ve always dreamt of a game with Finland in it

Didn’t you post house rules for a “greater Finland” set up? I really liked it and plan to use it in my future games. @Gargantua:

I always wished you could break sections down into larger teams.

IE, instead of playing ALL of Germany, you played as the supreme commander,  and had a leiutenant or two, to manage troops in theatres like the Eastern Front, or the Atlantic,  in side games.

Me too! but the size of the map would have to be huge! Not that that would be a turn off to any of us but I could see finishing a game becoming difficult. Maybe that’s something to try to do at FMG con next year, with the global 39 map? Create an Axis command and an allied command and break down responsibility for various countries and various fronts within that country if the size warrants it (American ETO and PTO, Soviet Europe, far east/commie China fronts). Just a thought