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.
@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.
Except Vietnam is far, far closer to the United States these days than China. Why then would you make them a Chinese ally (whom they hate) and not part of a Pacific coalition?
Except Vietnam is far, far closer to the United States these days than China. Why then would you make them a Chinese ally (whom they hate) and not part of a Pacific coalition?
Well I suppose, my history on Eastern Asian politics is not that great (outside of Japan)
Korean War version
Korean War version
That should translate into a good game.
In fact, Imperious Leader made one. You can download the map for free and buy roundels at HBG.
http://www.historicalboardgaming.com/Korean-Conflict-Map-Rules-Free-Download_p_628.html
Axis and Allies style Napoleonic Wars would be awesome… though it’s already been done by others…
War and Peace is very similar to A&A
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/120547/war-and-peace
I want the Civil War in AA style, or some Original Star Trek AA game
Star Trek
Star Fleet Battles
TTWG Capital Ships
Grand Strategy game ships and planets
Star wars
TTWG fighter-scale (Xwing Starfighter)
TTWG capital-ship scale (Armada)
Grand Strategy game ships and planets (Rebellion)
TTWG with figurines down to individual warriors (Imperial Assault)
The closest game I know of is called Battle Cry, its Memoir 44 but done as Civil War.
You only get men, cannons and cavalry (realistic, but…boring.)
If you throw in AxA, the above list should cover an entire lifetime stuck on a slow ship or dark basement…
IM thinking Federation, Klingon, Romulan, Possible others
Dreadnought 4-4
Heavy Cruiser 3-3
Destroyer 2-2
Space Station 5x5-5x5?
Transport
