Larry hints at next game.

@wittmann:

This would be my favourite game, but Larry has said on his site that he has not yet reconciled how the economics can work. The South cannot compete financially. I see his point.( And feel his pain.)  It has to be turn based and have a cut off point. The November 64 election is the obvious one.

How an A&A-style Civil War game could work is an interesting theoretical question.  As you’ve mentioned, the economic element would be a tough nut to crack. In very general terms, perhaps the rough parallel with A&A would be that, in A&A, the Axis starts out militarily strong but economically weak, and thus needs to hit hard and fast before the Allies can crank up their economic output and overwhelm the Axis with sheer numbers.  This is a bit similar to the situation that existed at the beginning of the Civil War, but with important differences too.  At the start of the conflict, the Confederacy wasn’t really militarily stronger than the Union from a numeric point of view, and wasn’t in a position to invade and conquer Union territory on a large scale (something which, in any case, wasn’t its strategic objective).  Rather, the Confederacy was in a fairly good position to fight a defensive war to hold its own territory (this being its actual strategic objective), in part because its armed forces had high motivation and good leadership (especially when compared with the Union side, which was lacking in both areas in the first half of the war).  This point, however, raises another difficult issue: should the game system “force” the Union player to replicate the Union’s command deficiencies for the 1861-1863 period, and if so how?  I for one would be unhappy with built-in “idiocy rules” that forced me to make the Union’s mistakes.

Your idea about the November 1864 election serving as an end-point is a good one.  Instead of the game having A&A-type victory cities for both sides, perhaps it could have political victory conditions on the Confederate side and geographic victory conditions on the Union side.  The Confederate objective would be to convince the North that it could never win militarily, i.e. that the best it could ever achieve against the South would be a stalemate.  This could be tracked on some sort of political points scale, with a victory being achieved on the Confederate side either by reaching a very high level at any point in the game (at which point the Union quits), or by reaching a somewhat lower level by the November 1864 election (at which point Lincoln loses the election, and his successor is presumed to make peace with the Confederacy).  For the Union, victory could be achieved either by occupying a large percentage of the Confederacy’s territory, or by occupying and holding a smaller number of territories that have a higher political value (Virginia would be a key objective).

Thanks and afternoon Marc.
I think that is Larry’s problem with a Civil War game.
It worked for us in original Pacific. If would have to be the only way here too. The North has to win the war(like Japan) and the South hold those all important cities and states.
There would have to be fortifications and there would not be many different kinds of units. Maybe supply tokens, which lessen as territory is lost, would reflect the South’s inability to prosecute an aggressive second half Of the war.
Not easy is it?
But we would buy and love it.

I am not sure how well an A&A style Civil War game would work, but i have played Battle Cry before and that was simple and fun. More like an advanced form of checkers than A&A though, if I remember correctly.

I never got Battle Cry, as it looked too simple.
I think Civil War would work, because it involves conquering land and resources. Maybe contested territories (like WW1) would work better.
Would be fewer units, of course.

@wittmann:

Would be fewer units, of course.

Could just use Risk pieces… infantry, artillery, cavalry. Suppose you might need some ships though.

Transports(river and ocean should be different, but probably easier not to be) and Ironclads(again should be river and ocean going).
The South cannot build ocean going ones.
Blockade runners should  be represented somehow too. The blockade’s effects on the South cannot be underestimated. Southern Supply has to be an issue.
Otherwise, as you said: Milita, Inf, Cav and Art.

Battle Cry is a good game. I just picked up the 150th anniversary edition as well as Memoir 44 and Battle Lore.

Personally I’d like to see a 15-16th century axis& Allies style of game.

@toblerone77:

Battle Cry is a good game. I just picked up the 150th anniversary edition as well as Memoir 44 and Battle Lore.

Personally I’d like to see a 15-16th century axis& Allies style of game.

Hmmm… didn’t know that was around. Might need to look into that.

@toblerone77:

Personally I’d like to see a 15-16th century axis& Allies style of game.

In view of the weaponry of the times, let’s call it Axes and Arbalets.

@CWO:

@toblerone77:

Personally I’d like to see a 15-16th century axis& Allies style of game.

In view of the weaponry of the times, let’s call it Axes and Arbalets.

My kind of game: the advent of field artillery and rudimentary firearms. Yet still have armour, swords, bows and (pole) axes.
Pole axes. Nice.

@LHoffman:

@toblerone77:

Battle Cry is a good game. I just picked up the 150th anniversary edition as well as Memoir 44 and Battle Lore.

Personally I’d like to see a 15-16th century axis& Allies style of game.

Hmmm… didn’t know that was around. Might need to look into that.

I have the 2000 version and the anniversary edition is on it’s way. BC150 has more battles and slightly different artwork. It’s around $50 with shipping and still easy to obtain.

I did not know about it either. I saw it for sale for £45, which seems a lot of money, for something I will probably never play. Thank you for saying you thought it a good game though.
I have five of the Brigade level games and three of the AH Bookcase games, Here Come the Rebels, as well as three others and then, my favourite, The Civil War by VG. I bought them all in the 90s.

These are games i would like to play:

A&A Operational:
Barbarossa (The Great Patriotic War)–the entire war in the east
Stalingrad
Kursk

Crusade in Europe–D-Day to the fall of Berlin
Operation Sealion–Hypothetical
The Battle of the Atlantic
War in the Desert–Rommel’s War

Midway
Operation Downfall–Invasion of Japan
Leyte Gulf
Invasion of Iwo Jima
Burma Road–The China-Burma-India Theater

Off WW2 games:

American Civil War
The Napoleonic Wars from Toulon to Waterloo

Just my ideas IMO…i would love to see these in A&A style

Wonder if Larry would ever consider an A&A fantasy game?

Conquest of Nerath is I guess pretty close to being exactly this, though I’ve toyed with the idea of using War of the Ring components for a pure wargame, without all the destroy the Ring stuff.

My Ideas:

Battle of Stalingrad (Germany, USSR, Minor Axis)
Battle of Berlin (Germany, USSR)
Fall of France (Germany, France, UK, Italy, Low Countries)
War of China (Nationalists, Japan, Communists, Yunnan, Sikiang, Guanxi, Shanxi)
Winter War (USSR, Finland, Germany [Support])
Operation Sealion (Germany, UK)
Fall of Italy (Germany, UK, USA, Fascist Italy, Monarch Italy)
World War 3 2018 (Russia, USA, UK, France, China, Central European Nato, Japanese & South Korean Coalition, Middle Eastern Union, India, ANZAC, North Korea & Cuba, Brazil)
War of the Ring (Gondor, Mordor, Isengard, Rohan, Bree, Khand, Rivendell)
Napoleonic Wars (France, UK, Russia, Austria-Prussia, Spain-South Italy)

@Ryuzaki_Lawliet:

War of the Ring (Gondor, Mordor, Isengard, Rohan, Bree, Khand, Rivendell)

I’m curious about why Bree, a small village, would be listed alongside various major military powers.

@CWO:

@Ryuzaki_Lawliet:

War of the Ring (Gondor, Mordor, Isengard, Rohan, Bree, Khand, Rivendell)

I’m curious about why Bree, a small village, would be listed alongside various major military powers.

You are right, Arnor would be better

@Ryuzaki_Lawliet:

My Ideas:

Battle of Stalingrad (Germany, USSR, Minor Axis)
Battle of Berlin (Germany, USSR)
Fall of France (Germany, France, UK, Italy, Low Countries)
War of China (Nationalists, Japan, Communists, Yunnan, Sikiang, Guanxi, Shanxi)
Winter War (USSR, Finland, Germany [Support])
Operation Sealion (Germany, UK)
Fall of Italy (Germany, UK, USA, Fascist Italy, Monarch Italy)
World War 3 2018 (Russia, USA, UK, France, China, Central European Nato, Japanese & South Korean Coalition, Middle Eastern Union, India, ANZAC, North Korea & Cuba, Brazil)
War of the Ring (Gondor, Mordor, Isengard, Rohan, Bree, Khand, Rivendell)
Napoleonic Wars (France, UK, Russia, Austria-Prussia, Spain-South Italy)

Napoleanic Wars would be great.  You would have to make it more like Risk, however, since the alliances were highly fluid and not set.

world War III would be great, but with 12 players, a wee bit too much.  Russia, USA, China, Japan, India for sure… Out of curiosity, why did you split NATO Central Europe off from France and UK?  And is the assumption that Italy, Spain, Benelux, etc., will stay out of the fight?  And, Middle Eastern Union… are you saying more like an Arab Union?  Or are you suggesting a kind of neo-Ottoman Empire that also encompasses Persia?  Or are you thinking more like a Sunni/Shia caliphate?  Interesting idea on ANZAC, but honestly, New Zealand basically has zero military, so not sure what that buys you.  Might as well just call them Australia.  The problem with Pacific powers is they pretty much uniformly despise one another.  Try getting the South Koreans and Japanese to even talk with one another, much less engage in a military alliance.

Perhaps some kind of Pacific Coalition that encompasses Singapore, Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Malaysia, and the Philippines?  Would have to hand wave the political aspect of that, but you put all those powers together, you get a world class Navy (Japan alone has the world’s second largest navy currently), and a real ground fighting force (South Korean military has about 700,000 people in it, and fly F-15s and drive Abrams main battle tanks.  It is a bad ass force).

Brazil doesn’t have much of a military to speak of either, nor does Cuba.

I guess I would do a World War III set in 2018 as follows, in varying power blocs:  Allies:  USA, UK, Australia, Pacific Coalition.  Independents:  India, China, Caliphate, Russia, North Korea, NATO (minus US and UK).

This gets the number of players down to a more manageable number, and makes the game more like a hybrid of A and A and risk.  The problem would be to figure out the mechanics of things like nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and the hardest part, the digital C4ISR backbone that enables the American military to be so dominant.

Would also love to see an Axis and Allies Civil War.  USA vs. CSA, with Kentucky, Missouri, West Virginia as Neutrals, and minor players the various Indian tribes.

@MightyChris:

@Ryuzaki_Lawliet:

My Ideas:

Battle of Stalingrad (Germany, USSR, Minor Axis)
Battle of Berlin (Germany, USSR)
Fall of France (Germany, France, UK, Italy, Low Countries)
War of China (Nationalists, Japan, Communists, Yunnan, Sikiang, Guanxi, Shanxi)
Winter War (USSR, Finland, Germany [Support])
Operation Sealion (Germany, UK)
Fall of Italy (Germany, UK, USA, Fascist Italy, Monarch Italy)
World War 3 2018 (Russia, USA, UK, France, China, Central European Nato, Japanese & South Korean Coalition, Middle Eastern Union, India, ANZAC, North Korea & Cuba, Brazil)
War of the Ring (Gondor, Mordor, Isengard, Rohan, Bree, Khand, Rivendell)
Napoleonic Wars (France, UK, Russia, Austria-Prussia, Spain-South Italy)

Napoleanic Wars would be great.  You would have to make it more like Risk, however, since the alliances were highly fluid and not set.

world War III would be great, but with 12 players, a wee bit too much.  Russia, USA, China, Japan, India for sure… Out of curiosity, why did you split NATO Central Europe off from France and UK?  And is the assumption that Italy, Spain, Benelux, etc., will stay out of the fight?  And, Middle Eastern Union… are you saying more like an Arab Union?  Or are you suggesting a kind of neo-Ottoman Empire that also encompasses Persia?  Or are you thinking more like a Sunni/Shia caliphate?  Interesting idea on ANZAC, but honestly, New Zealand basically has zero military, so not sure what that buys you.  Might as well just call them Australia.  The problem with Pacific powers is they pretty much uniformly despise one another.  Try getting the South Koreans and Japanese to even talk with one another, much less engage in a military alliance.

Perhaps some kind of Pacific Coalition that encompasses Singapore, Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Malaysia, and the Philippines?  Would have to hand wave the political aspect of that, but you put all those powers together, you get a world class Navy (Japan alone has the world’s second largest navy currently), and a real ground fighting force (South Korean military has about 700,000 people in it, and fly F-15s and drive Abrams main battle tanks.  It is a bad ass force).

Brazil doesn’t have much of a military to speak of either, nor does Cuba.

I guess I would do a World War III set in 2018 as follows, in varying power blocs:  Allies:  USA, UK, Australia, Pacific Coalition.  Independents:  India, China, Caliphate, Russia, North Korea, NATO (minus US and UK).

This gets the number of players down to a more manageable number, and makes the game more like a hybrid of A and A and risk.  The problem would be to figure out the mechanics of things like nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and the hardest part, the digital C4ISR backbone that enables the American military to be so dominant.

Combine France and UK into one power, capital is London. NATO will be every other country of the alliance, with the capital in Berlin. Russia will begin the game controlling East Ukraine and Crimea. Pacific Coalition will have it’s capital in Tokyo. USA will begin the game set in a possible future where the economy has collapsed under it’s weight, and thus begins weak. China will also start with similar problems so to speak. The Middle Eastern Union will consist of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Libya, Egypt, and Pakistan, it’s capital being in Tehran. North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, and other friendly nations to Russia will consist of another power, with the capital in Pyongyang.

USA, France/UK, NATO, Pacific Coalition, India vs. Russia, Middle Eastern Union, China, North Korea/Vietnam/Russian Friendly Nations

Nuclear Weapons are not a given in WW3, if madmen like Hitler and Stalin never used chemical weaponry, then I doubt more sane individuals would risk the end of the world.

Ballistic Missiles I guess could be similar to how they were in Global.