The Great War 1914-1918: Clash of Empires

@SuperbattleshipYamato

Added TripleA compatibility.

While I think having cuba be its own power would be cool, it would kind of like having New Zealand be its own power in g40. You would have to wonder how much they really contribute. Maybe you could make it so that the Warsaw Pact can pay to build units to support Castro and the gang in cuba, possibly at higher cost cuz of the blockades and embargoes and stuff, if the Warsaw pact is smart, like they were during the cold war, they’ll buff the hell out of cuba to prevent a traditional land invasion, and nukes aren’t always realistic. If they’re dumb then cuba will just be invaded and it will be an opportunity lost, which absolutely could have happened if the ussr wasn’t paying attention. I’m thinking about alternative rules where one or two players play each Nuetral category so it feels like they’re entities and not roadblocks, but I’ve got a ton of stuff I need to do before then soooooo… The setup for cuba will not change for balancing reasons, it accurately represents their power near it’s height, which was also the time when it was diplomatically plausible for the US to invade. For your expansion however, I recommend cuba starts the game Strict Nuetral with an army of one infantry.

This is an update on a project I began some time ago, Axis & Allies: World at War.

The goal is to create a single, custom game map, ruleset, and playset for use in private games. In short, creating an Axis & Allies variant similar to Global War, but without the intent to mass produce or sell the product commercially. This means that I will engage a professional mapmaker to create a high-quality play mat and play aids (e.g., charts, roundels, cards, etc.).

In terms of mechanics, this will be a card-driven game like Amateurs to Arms and Mr. Madison’s War bolted onto the Axis & Allies core rules. Basically, players will draw from decks of cards that set global conditions, activate neutral nations, and let them activate units in given territories. Rather than being able to move all units every turn, players will spend Operations Points to move specific armies. Additional Operations Points can be obtained through card play, from possession of strategic resources, and by building and placing supply columns. The latter are units that move along with armies, allowing the player to activate that stack every turn for free. They may, however, be captured by the enemy.

The game will feature both territories and point-to-point movement. Possession of a given number of points within a given territory translates to ownership, which yields a production value in IPCs. The game pieces will be a mixture of plastic pieces and traditional counters.

We will use an alternate history to bring all corners of the map into play. The map is inspired by both Harry Turtledove’s Great War series and an alternate history saga known as The Feast of Eagles, which imagined a world in which Europe remained largely divided after the Wars of Religion. The major conflict in North America is between the United States and the Confederate States. In South America, Argentina squares off in a naval race with Portugal, which retains its Brazilian colony. In Europe, a Franco-Russian alliance is opposed by the British and the Austrians. Minor powers include Castille (British-allied), the Two Sicilies (French-allied), Poland (allied with Sweden), and a restored Byzantine Empire. At the onset of the twentieth century, the French also dammed the Mediterranean, flooding the Lake Chad Basin. A similar project was undertaken in the Congo. Along with the Great Lakes, both African “world lakes” are accessible by a new canal infrastructure that admits oceangoing vessels. Japan squares off in the Far East against an ascendant Russia, a China of dubious strength, and the United Netherlands, not to mention the British.

At this point, I have a notional set of units. Again, feedback would be excellent, especially by folks that are good at optimizing builds. Which proposed units are unlikely every to be built?
Axis and Allies Units.pdf

Probably Confederate infantry attire would strongly resemble British or French kit, to include either the Adrian, or, even more likely, the Brodie helmet.

One imagines that the Union would take its cues from the Germans, or, even more likely, the Russians, meaning either no helmet, or else some version of the stahlhlem. It’s also possible that one might see a distinctive steel hat more akin to the M1, or even a kind of “stovepipe” or “top hat” in steel.

I’m trying hard to think up certain National Advantages. Perhaps Confederate cavalry would be able to execute a kind of blitzkrieg. Would it be likely that a nation without much native automobile production, but having to cover a long border with a relatively small standing army, would develop a heavy emphasis on motorization?

As early as Bull Run, both armies were learning the military value of railroads.

Rules for World War II The Struggle for Europe and Asia can be found here:

http://www.ww2wargame.com/forum/index.php?topic=105.0

In terms of pieces and map, it looks pretty much the same as what you get in Conquest of the Empire; I think the Eagle Games edition is still pretty widely available…

I play it like this:

Infantry attack at 2, defend at 3
Cavalry attack at 4, defend at 2 and have a 2 movement
Artillery attack at 3, defend at 5 and have a preemptive attack

Since I use CotE components, I use the income system from it, along with the cities, fortresses and roads and leaders

(and then I have 2 expansion levels beyond this by adding assorted other components)

I supose if I had built ships it would have made a difference.  I may give that a shot next time I play Germany.  It looks like I will be playing an ally this time though…

the simpliest, the quickest !!!

try xenogears.com thre’s the 3.1 version rule and you can get the game from here :)