Tigerman's Barbarossa Game now at HBG

Re: 1950 Korea variant?20211219_071801.jpg 20211219_071710.jpg 20211219_071617.jpg

It makes sense, to me at least.

Also from a collecting standpoint, I think even a good set of Generics or Generics by side can be desirable. It was rather novel for example in 1941 how the sets were done, because many people have uses for certain units in certain colors which might not come standard in other national sets. For special forces units, or a lend lease feel, or to include minor nations somewhere. In the same way that some people enjoy getting their hands on Lime Green Brits, or the nice cool Grey germans from Revised, because they have a color scheme that works for whatever purpose; similarly, the units from 1941, because they are generics, could potentially be included in other scenarios.  Basically 41 gives you an incentive to pick it up just to grab a few of those special units for the arsenal in a nice color spread. The Japanese Tigers for example, or the nice Warhawks.

What you are discussing with ships is exactly on point. The sort of confusion that arises between cruisers destroyers and the like, because of the shapes/sizes used by different nations for the same basic type. I think you could do a lot just with size on the length dimension.

If for example all destroyers were exactly the same length, and there was a reasonable spread between the length of the types. For example, start with the cheapest combat capable units and develop some exact ratio that is consistent for all nations.

So, using normal A&A size units, maybe something like…

Subs are 1 inch
Destroyers 1 inch and a third
Cruisers 1 inch and two thirds
Carriers 2 inches
Battleships 2 inches, since its fairly easy to distinguish between the carrier and battleship by shape.

So the sub is the baseline (whatever its length is determined to be) and all other warships build off that.
Sub x 1, x 1.333, x 1.666, x 2 etc to keep it all visually simple and immediately recognizable.

Or in the case of micro, you could make the base sub length smaller by 25% or 33% or whatever seems to make it feel visibly more micro, when compared with the normal scale A&A. With the ships listed above, plugged into set length ratios by type, I think it would be pretty easy to tell them apart, whether generic or national in shape. I do agree, squared vs rounded is very important for differentiation of units (more than width in many cases) so I would try to use that to differentiate if I could. Likewise height features also help to differentiate units provided they are markedly different.

That just leaves you with the Transport unit, which should be generic for all players, and (critically!) should be able to “seat” any land unit capable of being transported. In other words the ship should break relative scale to be more in line with the land units it transports rather than other ships. Because this requires a flat topped transport (no smoke stacks!) I would suggest a very different visual shape from the carrier deck. So elliptical transports and squared carriers for example. The transport should likewise have a well balanced and flat bottom so that it “slides” easily with units aboard, or stacks well atop a chip in the case of large unloaded transport stacks. The Transport unit is highly abstract to begin with, and so I think its sculpt should be more functional rather than decorative.

Carriers, Transports, or any unit on which another unit can can be loaded or “parked”, should have a good center of gravity, flat bottom, and no wobble. Likewise, any unit which can rest on other units should have a good center of gravity and a flat bottom to minimize wobble while atop the other unit.

It would be nice for example if units like Mech, or Artillery were designed to sit more snugly on top, or alongside of units they are paired with. I think micro has the potential to do this, and provides a nice opportunity, since you’d have smaller infantry and fighters etc, but by introducing a really strong relative scale by ship type, you could still have pretty large Carriers and Transports. I think that with Tanks, as long as they were paired exactly by size, you could probably find a nice way to scale it using Nationals. But I do agree that if you wanted to do generic by side, the models knp mentioned sound pretty solid to me. I think I’d be happy with those.

The only unit that seems to really call out for Nationals is infantry, but this also has to do with how large the infantry currently are. At a smaller size helmet differentiation becomes a little less significant, and that is the main distinguishing characteristic of infantry. If you did do generic by side even for infantry, I think I would more readily accept German helmets on the Japanese, than I would all the same helmets for the Allies. You have to go down pretty small before the differences become negligible, I’d say something along the lines of the 40th anniversary Risk units, before people wouldn’t be all sad that the Brits and Americans and Russians look too similar with their helmets.

Hey Industrious leader, did you finally managed to create a Stalingrad game? Is it the one that has been posted for some time at Historical Boardgaming webpage?

Project was abandoned for now. Sorry :cry:

I have it, but am holding onto it for further playtesting on the set-ups.

Europe is being slightly changed in terms of the map, and there will be some minor additions to the rules.  These changes will probably be part of the map/rule package I am looking into producing.  Pacific would be released this way as well if all falls together.

Cheers

@Dylan:

Turn Order: Russia, France, UK, Austria-Prussia.

Russia=Blue
Austro-Prussian Alliance=Yellow
France=Black
UK=Red

UK’s Setup
England= 3 Swordsmen, 1 Riflemen, 1 Calvary, 2 Cannon, 1 General.
Scotland= 1 Calvary
Ireland= 1 Swordsmen
Sweden= 3 Swordsmen
Portugal= 1 Swordsmen, 1 Calvary, 1 Cannon
Gibraltar= 1 Swordsmen
Malta.

France Setup

Paris: 3 Swordsmen, 1 Rifleman, 2 Calvary, 1 Cannon, General
Southern France: 2 Swordsmen, 1 Rifleman, 1 Calvary, 1 Cannon
French Coastline: 2 Swordsmen, 2 Calvary, 1 Cannon
Central France: 1 Swordsman, 1 Rifleman
Holland.
United Netherlands.
Denmark: 3 Swordsmen
Norway: 1 Swordsman, 1 Calvary
Switzerland.
Italy: 3 Swordsmen, 1 Calvary, 1 Cannon
Naples: 3 Swordsmen, 1 Calvary, 1 Cannon
Etruria
Hanover
Warsaw: 1 Swordsman, 1 Rifleman, 1 Calvary
North Spain: 3 Swordsmen, 1 Rifleman, 1 Calvary, 1 Cannon
South Spain: 3 Swordsmen
North Germany: 2 Swordsmen, 1 Cannon
South Germany: 3 Swordsmen

Austria-Prussia Alliance Setup

East Austria: 3 Swordsmen, 1 Calvary, 1 Cannon, 1 General
West Prussia: 2 Swordsmen, 1 Calvary, 1 Cannon
West Austria: 2 Swordsmen, 1 Cannon
Central Prussia: 2 Swordsmen
East Prussia
Central Austria

Russia Setup

Western Russia: 2 Swordsmen
Moscow: 3 Swordsmen, 1 Calvary
Central Russia: 2 Swordsmen
Ukraine: 2 Swordsmen, 1 Cannon
Belarus: 2 Swordsmen, 1 Calvary
St. Petersburg: 3 Swordsmen, 1 Rifleman, 2 Calvary, 1 Cannon, 1 General
Northern Finland: 2 Swordsmen
Southern Finland: 2 Swordsmen
Siberia: 2 Swordsmen

Well we know the color change, but the setup is different

England: 3 Infantry, 1 Cannon, 1 Calvary, 1 General
Scotland: 1 Calvary
Ireland: 1 Infantry
Sweden: 3 Infantry
Portugal: 1 Infantry, 1 Calvary
Gibraltar: 1 Infantry

Paris: 3 Infantry, 1 Cannon, 2 Calvary, 1 General
Southern France: 2 Infantry, 1 Cannon, 1 Calvary
French Coastline: 2 Infantry, 2 Calvary
Central France: 1 Infantry, 1 Cannon
Denmark: 3 Infantry
Norway: 1 Infantry, 1 Calvary
Italy: 3 Infantry, 1 Calvary
Naples: 3 Infantry, 1 Calvary
Warsaw: 1 Infantry, 1 Cannon, 1 Calvary
North Spain: 3 Infantry, 1 Cannon, 1 Calvary
South Spain: 3 Infantry
North Rhine: 2 Infantry
South Rhine: 3 Infantry

Austrian-Prussian Alliance
East Austria: 3 Infantry, 1 Calvary, 1 General
West Prussia: 2 Infantry, 1 Calvary
West Austria: 2 Infantry
East Prussia: 2 Infantry

Russia
Western Russia: 2 Infantry
Moscow: 3 Infantry, 1 Calvary
Central Russia: 2 Infantry
Ukraine: 2 Infantry
Belarus: 2 Infantry, 1 Calvary
St. Petersburg: 3 Infantry, 1 Cannon, 2 Calvary
Northern Finland: 2 Infantry
Southern Finland: 2 Infantry
Siberia: 2 Infantry

Very similar.

The pieces are risk

Infantry: 1 Unit (risk)
Cannon: 5 Units (risk)
Calvary: 3 Units (risk)
General: 10 Units (risk)

I’ll try to do a better map.

I’m also making a second game World War I.

Fortress America was broken. Did they fix it?

From BGG:

I have not yet played this game but thought I would review the components and rules prior to playing. These are my initial impressions which may change after playing the game.

I was intrigued enough to purchase this game for several reasons: 1) the publisher is offering a significant discount on the game - $25.00 plus shipping (wow!), 2) it has 438 component pieces (I love little plastic armies), 3) it plays on a world map, and finally 4) I love Axis and Allies and have been nostalgic for games like Supremacy ever since I dug it out of storage last month.

In summary, I have not been disappointed yet. I feel I got superior value for my money and would recommend this game to other fans of world domination games. I can’t wait to play!

The Components
The main playing pieces come on plastic sprues and should be removed with an exacto knife. Seven colors came with the set: White (use by all players for factories, air defense, generals, nuclear bombs, and leaders), and colors for six players - Gray, Blue, Red, Purple, Green, and Yellow. These pieces represent infantry, tanks, fighters, bombers, battleships (now called battlecruisers), aircraft carriers, artillery, subs, and transport ships. It doesn’t matter which superpower uses which color. The plastic is good quality.

The game actually allows for up to eight players and the rulebook mentions an expansion pack. I am guessing Brown and Orange would be in the upcoming expansion pack.

The pieces are very good and remind me a lot of Axis and Allies pieces. The one drawback seems to be the tanks which are much smaller than those pictured. In fact, they are almost teeny-tiny. I’m not sure if the small size will hinder or help gameplay at this time.

Other components include circle territory markers, plastic poker chips for stacking under the pieces, dice, plastic container trays, plastic bags, and cards for each superpower, development tracking, and conducting battles.

The gameboard is beautifully illustrated on a heavy, large tri-fold board. It reminded me so much of Axis and Allies I had to go back and look at it to make sure it wasn’t the exact same board!

Finally, the box is heavy duty and will hold up for years. Somewhat surprisingly, the game was shipped to me via Fed Ex with a shipping label slapped on the clear shrinkwrap! Most games would never make the journey but my set survived with a minor dent on a corner. However, if you are at all concerned about getting your set “Mint in Box” I’d highly recommend requesting some type of shipping container when ordering your set from the publisher. They may charge you more but it may be worth it to you. I couldn’t care less.

Rules
I think the rulebook could have been written better. You can view a copy of the rulebook on the superpowergames.com website. The website also clarifies some errors in the Errata section.

Play mostly works like Axis and Allies with players attempting to gain control of enough capitals to win the game. There are a few interesting twists that have been created to make the game fit in a more contemporary setting: Alliances can be formed and broken, technology can be researched, and money is eliminated (technically still in the game just not represented with paper currency). Additional minor concepts have been added like Encirclement which allows players to resolve battles without rolling the dice in certain situations. Clearly the designer is attempting to speed play and focus the game on the fun aspects of world domination rather than the tedium of counting out paper money and fighting insignificant battles.

Final Thoughts
Some of the graphics and illustrations lend the feel of an upstart game maker pursuing his passion with an invention created with a low budget in his garage and home personal computer. Part of that makes me instantly like the game even more. In fact, the creator emailed me shortly after purchasing the game asking for feedback. Very nice personal touch!

If you like Axis and Allies, I think this game may be for you. It looks fun, the components are great, and for $25.00 you are getting a tremendous value. There might be some minor polish issues here and there but it’s got all the goods where it really counts.

I will do another review after I have a chance to play!

Here are my versions of:

Operation: Market Garden

http://axisandallies.metalsaber.com/Market.jpg

Operation: Sealion

http://axisandallies.metalsaber.com/Sealion.jpg

Operation: Downfall

RB
http://axisandallies.metalsaber.com/Downfall.jpg