WT ! :? You got White Walkers in there somewhere ?
Axis and Allies mechanics–but different game map entirely. Risk style?
-
Hello everyone!
This is my first post on here, though I must admit I have been a lurker for quite a few years. I love Axis and Allies and my gaming group generally enjoy it as well. I have G40, 1914, and 1942 (2nd edition) and we play quite often (mostly G40). However, I am hoping to help keep everyone entertained by having a bit of a twist with the games. I love the mechanics of G40 and am looking to either find or make a game that uses such mechanics but is closer to the (for lack of a better word)–-RISK style. Basically using Axis and Allies game pieces and mechanics but with the whole diplomacy issue between the players.I once saw a board game just like this (set in like alternative 1980ish world) with 8 powers to choose from and a few extra pieces (I believe Generals, Nukes, etc). I can’t for the life of me recall it. So my questions are this:
- Does anyone know of this game?
- Does anyone know of a map that I might use for such a game, if there isn’t a whole game like this I could purchase?
- I’d like anyone’s input on who desires to use A&A mechanics but with a diplomatic/different map, start up, alliances, etc.
-
There is a game called the “Superpowers” board game. Not sure if you can still buy it though. http://www.superpowersgame.com/scripts/index.php
-
am looking to either find or make a game that uses such mechanics but is closer to the (for lack of a better word)–-RISK style. Basically using Axis and Allies game pieces and mechanics but with the whole diplomacy issue between the players. […]
3. I’d like anyone’s input on who desires to use A&A mechanics but with a diplomatic/different map, start up, alliances, etc.The Superpowers game that toblerone 77 mentions sounds very much like the 8-powers game you were describing. Another (much older) game along those lines was Supremacy. One thing I’m wondering about, however, is your reference to Risk having a “diplomacy” component. Could you clarify what you’re referring to? Are you perhaps thinking of the game called Diplomacy rather than Risk?
-
There is a game called the “Superpowers” board game. Not sure if you can still buy it though.Â
Ah that’s the game! Couldn’t for the life of me remember! Thank you! Though I do wonder if it is possible to even buy ha ha.
@ CWO Marc: I meant Risk style “diplomacy” in the sense of non-fixed teams (it was a very broad and poor comparison). Of course in Risk there are no Team victories, but I meant mostly the idea of allowing people to make alliances if they desired. Basically I feel that some people in my gaming group are getting tired of the same old same old Axis vs. Allies setting. (I can play it all the time, but I love it more than them perhaps). We love the mechanics and just want a game that allows us to use the A&A mechanics but have an option to have diplomacy or have alternative starting positions, teams, etc. I saw one idea of having Japan be an Allied Power, and USA be an Axis Power. But I am mostly looking for an overhaul of a map and some game mechanics surrounding diplomacy in order to keep replay ability very high, plus add the element of intrigue. The only thing I would suggest is that at a certain point alliances are locked in place, or else no one would trust his neighbor.
Any ideas on how to accomplish some of this?
-
Any ideas on how to accomplish some of this?
It depends on whether or not historical credibility matters to you. If it doesn’t matter to you at all, then the answer is very simple: you simply operate each player nation as a separate entity which is free to ally itself with whomever it wants and to make war against whomever it wants. I think this concept was once described by somebody as a “free-for-all” game. It gives you maximum flexibility (something which your group seems to be interested in), at the expense of having little or no “narrative” driving the game (meaning that there’s little or no background story – at least no credible one – explaining why the nations of the world are behaving this way). I don’t have any personal interest in this approach, so I’m not in a good position to describe its advantages, merits, or operational details.
If, however, it does matter to you for your game to have some sort of plausible background scenario, here are a few ideas. I’ll limit them to the WWII era, since that’s the historical period in which I have the most interest.
One thing you could do is to make the complications of WWII work to your advantage. As Richard Overy explains concisely in the opening note to his book Why The Allies Won, the terms “Axis” and “Allies” are actually imperfect labels for two broad coalitions whose composition changed at many points during the war, and many of whose members were, at various times, not even actually at war. This resulted in all kinds of situations that look odd, when you view them from the perspective of the US, the UK, the USSR, France, ANZAC and China being on the Allied side and Germany, Japan and Italy being on the Axis side. Just as three examples: France and Britain considered war against the USSR in support of Finland in 1939; the British attacked the French fleet in 1940; and Germany attacked the Italian fleet in 1943. So you could play on elements like that to generate some alternate game scenarios. What if, for example, Germany and the USSR had remained allies under the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? (A scenario like that is discussed in the book “What If?: Military Historians Imagine What Might Have Been”, under the title – if I remember correctly- of “Triumph of the Dictators”). In other words, play around with different alliances between the major powers, while trying to keep then plausible. Then, once you’ve set up these alternate power blocks with the main nations, throw in some more variation by taking the various neutrals/minor powers and attaching them to these new power blocks, in ways that were perhaps different than was the case historically.
-
@CWO:
Any ideas on how to accomplish some of this?
It depends on whether or not historical credibility matters to you. If it doesn’t matter to you at all, then the answer is very simple: you simply operate each player nation as a separate entity which is free to ally itself with whomever it wants and to make war against whomever it wants. I think this concept was once described by somebody as a “free-for-all” game. It gives you maximum flexibility (something which your group seems to be interested in), at the expense of having little or no “narrative” driving the game (meaning that there’s little or no background story – at least no credible one – explaining why the nations of the world are behaving this way). I don’t have any personal interest in this approach, so I’m not in a good position to describe its advantages, merits, or operational details.
If, however, it does matter to you for your game to have some sort of plausible background scenario, here are a few ideas. I’ll limit them to the WWII era, since that’s the historical period in which I have the most interest.Â
One thing you could do is to make the complications of WWII work to your advantage. As Richard Overy explains concisely in the opening note to his book Why The Allies Won, the terms “Axis” and “Allies” are actually imperfect labels for two broad coalitions whose composition changed at many points during the war, and many of whose members were, at various times, not even actually at war. This resulted in all kinds of situations that look odd, when you view them from the perspective of the US, the UK, the USSR, France, ANZAC and China being on the Allied side and Germany, Japan and Italy being on the Axis side. Just as three examples: France and Britain considered war against the USSR in support of Finland in 1939; the British attacked the French fleet in 1940; and Germany attacked the Italian fleet in 1943. So you could play on elements like that to generate some alternate game scenarios. What if, for example, Germany and the USSR had remained allies under the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? (A scenario like that is discussed in the book “What If?: Military Historians Imagine What Might Have Been”, under the title – if I remember correctly- of “Triumph of the Dictators”). In other words, play around with different alliances between the major powers, while trying to keep then plausible. Then, once you’ve set up these alternate power blocks with the main nations, throw in some more variation by taking the various neutrals/minor powers and attaching them to these new power blocks, in ways that were perhaps different than was the case historically.Â
Thank you for the ideas! It doesn’t matter to me so much the historical side (though I love history) but I am open to your second idea with mixing and matching alliances. My biggest issue is resolving the IPC balance. In a G40 game would you have Germany, Italy, and Russia vs. Everyone else? etc.
I was wondering if anyone had seen map that had a more balanced money situation more suitable for “home made” teams or even free for all types (though I like team games over the highlander “THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!” type).
-
I was wondering if anyone had seen map that had a more balanced money situation more suitable for “home made” teams or even free for all types
In case this is of any interest:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Part_of-Supremacy_Game_by_Diabolo.jpg
-
@ army man
you could try some of the altrenate set ups. Also triplea has a game called napoleonic empires that is a FFA. It seems pretty popular
Suggested Topics
