Fortunes of Victory - New Cards

@Trenacker:

First of all, many thanks to both of you for your replies. This is exactly the kind of feedback that I was seeking.

No problem at all. The customization area is my favorite because you can only play the OOB game so long before it becomes a science. Expanding and improving on the game is enjoyable for me, both in a mechanical and artistic sense.

@Trenacker:

Is there anyone out there who can render an informed opinion on whether Photoshop is a must-have for this kind of work? PowerPoint 2013 has a lot of improved functionality over earlier versions, but because it isn’t made for photo editing, a lot of clumsy work-arounds are required to produce layered images.

One big question I have is how to deal with card backings. I know the old trick of printing out the two sides separately and gluing them together, but I’d prefer to print a single sheet, front and back.

Surely there must be a template out there, used to create cards for other games, that can help me size the cards properly?

YG used some program, I forget which, but it was not Photoshop. And he also used an internet card printing company called Artscow to custom print his decks. It was my impression that people could go to the website, find his deck and order their own sets. I believe it was all based on a 52 card deck in standard playing card size.

That should be a good resource to start with. I did not work with them specifically, so I do not know if there is any flexibility in size.

@Trenacker:

The idea is to have three sets of cards. One set is a general deck of cards that will be used in common by all the players. The second set is divided into multiple, smaller, national decks, one for each player-country in the game. Players will draw a hand of 5 cards, two from the general deck, and three from their respective national deck, at the start of the game. (If one player is representing multiple countries, they will draw full hands for each individual country, respectively.) Cards will indicate when they may be played. The third set of cards is the Event deck. One Event is drawn and played immediately prior to the start of each nation’s turn.

Beginning in the second round, players will draw one new card from both decks (two cards in total) at the start of each turn, first from the national deck, and then from the general deck. Players stop drawing when they a full hand of 7 cards and may not draw again until they have played one or more of those cards, reducing the size of their hand to 6 cards or fewer.

Sounds like you have the general mechanics pretty well down. 7 cards per nation looks like a lot to me, but depending on what they are it really may not be too much. My concern with drawing one card per turn was that not enough cards would be able to be played. Drawing a few to begin the game alleviates that.

@Trenacker:

In terms of categories, I think we can confirm:

• Units - Cards that allow a player to place special land, sea, or air units on the board during his or her Placement phase. Special units may be represented by special markers (e.g., slips of paper, coins placed beneath an OOB game piece) or by after-market pieces. Units are represented at the army corps, naval squadron, and air wing level.

• National Advantages - Cards that attempt to approximate conditions specific to each nation, including industrial capabilities, technological leads, doctrinal preferences, the actions or contributions of “minor” allies (e.g., Finland, Siam, etc.), and special military capabilities (e.g., access to colonial troops).

• Leaders - Cards representing various personalities with a decisive impact on each nation’s war effort, especially political and military leaders.

• Strategy & Tactics - Cards representing various doctrinal and logistical innovations that provide the player with advantages in combat and production.

• Events - Cards that deal with political events that could have changed the outcome of the war. For example: an aggressive naval building program by the Dutch, resulting in deployment of large cruisers to the NEI; the Rasputitsa in Western Russia; or the opening of a neutral port to Axis commerce raiders and submarines.

National Advantages:   As stated, for some reason I really like these. I am struggling with whether or not these should be disclosed when the game starts though. Depending on what exactly these are determined to be, it may be a little unfair to spring them on your enemy without him at least knowing it will come at some point.

Leaders/Strategy&Tactics:   I see these categories having a lot of overlap and could possibly be combined. Leaders and national tactics are intertwined. Just my opinion.

Events:   This one I am little unsure of. The events you allude to in your examples border on examples of alternate history, which I do not like as a framework for the game. Granted, Axis & Allies is an exercise in alternate history in-and-of-itself, however to introduce alternate history into the game artificially through cards and rules is not something I am for. At least, that is my opinion.

My proposition would be an event card which is predicated on an action by the cardholder. For example, to open said neutral port to the Axis, Germany must do ‘A’. Sort of like one of those old Mission Cards in Risk. To get X reward you must accomplish X task. This would provide for the introduction of actual historical pivot points where if certain decisions were made alternate paths may have been taken. I think that most of these would be political in nature since you already control the tactical part.

My conception of the Event Card is also informed by the Fortune cards from Axis & Allies: D-Day. If I remember correctly, they involved things like weather conditions or chance events that you can either improve, keep normal or make more difficult based on a pre-roll. Food for thought at least.

@Trenacker:

The flavor text – a little “factoid” providing background on each card – is a sticking point only because I think that every card already needs to include all the rules necessary to use it. This, combined with the need to include a decent-sized picture and all the other relevant information, leaves very little space for even a sentence or two of interesting information at the bottom. One option is to ditch the roundels in favor of identifying faction association on the backings of each card. Another is to use the stripes in the upper left-hand corners, or else just the colored borders of each card, to communicate information that would otherwise be presented as a silhouette elsewhere on the card itself.

The indicating style is really up to your aesthetic tastes. I personally like either the roundels or colors. The factoids would be cool, but as you said, you likely won’t have enough space for it.

@Trenacker:

I agree that the initial focus should be building something fun. We can then move progressively to balance it based on user feedback.

Agreed. Though as before, I would stress simplicity above all.

@Trenacker:

In a first round, I plan to make full decks for the US, UK, FEC/ANZAC, China, France, Russia, Italy, Germany, and Japan. Each national deck will also cover contributions of “minor” allies. Thus, the Japanese deck will include cards relevant to Manchukuo and Siam. Some cards may need to be discarded during play. For example, the Japanese may be required to discard an unplayed card allowing it to place troops in Siam if an Event has already been played that causes Siam to remain “true” neutral or enter the Allied camp.

Sounds like some of your ideas may work best with Historical Board Gaming’s Global War map. It has a lot more detail for the minor Axis/Ally members and neutrals.

@Trenacker:

In a second round, I may make additional decks based on the Global 1914 map, with the intent of doing a play-through into the WW2 period. Thus, I’d need to add decks for the Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, Portuguese, and Spanish Empires. I’d love to see a custom map adding a Confederate States of America and the possibility of playing all of the ABC nations in South America, but I won’t hold my breath.

This is very ambitious. As CWO Marc pointed out, this is very much alternate history. It almost would require some sort of graphic board to move political boundaries. That is just the start of issues. But more power to you and good luck.

On the subject of a photoshop alternative, I suggest looking into Gimp. Gimp is an open source (free) image manipulation program with many of the same capabilities as photoshop.  The user interface can be a little less than intuitive at times,  but there are many tutorials on the Web and YouTube that can get you started.

Nice cards,  by the way.

There are a number of tutorials on the website at gimp dot org/tutorials (sorry,  don’t have permission to post links yet).  See also: gimp-tutorials dot net.

@Trenacker:

Currently building out the card list to which I linked earlier. Please let me know if you can’t access the file via the link (it should take you to my Google Drive).

I’d love some input.

One of the big problems that I’m running into is that it’s hard to introduce too many new units under the d6 structure. Obviously, d12 creates some good breathing room, while d20 gives you lots of good freedom.

I’m right now experimenting with giving some units d12 stats in the context of the d6 game.

That has been an issue for me in the past as well and also a step that I have been unwilling to take. With all the new sculpts that HBG puts out, I want to find as many uses for them as I can. This can be done by expanding the die odds with 8-, 10- or 12- sided dice but, to me, doing so would change the established framework too much. You have to re-invent how every unit hits and make sure everyone in your play group knows it. This isn’t insurmountable by any means, just a little uncomfortable and I don’t know if it would stick (for me anyhow). I think the most I would be willing to go for is an 8-sided die.

The way I have been approaching the incorporation of totally new unit types is to give them unique roll values in the 6-sided realm where possible, but also to give them intrinsic special abilities. This would certainly incentivize their purchase and not have them be just the same as another OOB unit type. I personally would not endeavor to make every unit have a unique cost and roll figure; I think that would just be too confusing. Especially if using 6+ sided dice, it becomes a bevy of too many options to choose from and inevitably certain units will be completely ignored.

@Trenacker:

Yeah, I’m finding it a bit rough to manage with just a d6 and special abilities.

One issue is that a lot of cheap units can force re-rolls with their special ability. I think that there needs to be a “Rule of Three,” meaning that a player can’t use more than three re-rolls per combat. I got the idea from the HeroClix miniatures game.

I’m buying the 1939 Global map. I am curious to see all the new territories. I think I’ve been spoiled by TripleA, which has much larger maps, along with the ability to track a lot of variables without ever troubling the player.

As an aside, I can’t seem to complete a transaction of the FMG website, and they answer neither my e-mails nor my PMs. Anybody know how much longer until those pieces refresh in availability on HBG?

I had every heroclix piece that was ever made, from the beginning till February of 2013, then I couldn’t keep up with it anymore. The company was making so many sets, that I got frustrated as a completest.

@Trenacker:

I want the FMG Italians, but, as I said, I can’t seem to pay via Pay Pal. For some reason, that functionality isn’t there.

HBG has great stuff. I’m eager for them to get the expansion packs for 1939 Global back in stock.

I’m also eager to find some A&A Pacific 1st edition red Japanese infantry.

FMG is kind of MIA, if you know what I mean.

Just my advice though… make any and all transactions through HBG’s website. They sell most of FMG’s products, even the Italian units; they have run out of some though. People have had lots of issues with FMG returning emails and fulfilling orders. My understanding is that a production issue in China nearly sank the company, but they are not what they once were.

@Trenacker:

I think HBG’s been out of stock on the Italian pieces for about a month.

I just checked, they still have some. You have to click on each individual unit to see if there are any left in stock. Some are out though. I clicked on the transport and they have like 153 left or something.

@Trenacker:

Is there a thread on which we can suggest new pieces? I think that horse cavalry, torpedo boats, and combat engineers are obvious next sculpts.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=27911.1080    This is more or less the de facto HBG thread on updates and new pieces, both commentary and requests.

The three you suggested above are cool ideas, but to me they wouldn’t really fit with A&A or Global War. Horse Cavalry may work in A&A 1914, but they played a small role in WWII and are highly inferior to any of the other units you could purchase. The other two just have problems with scale. A torpedo boat force is just too small, un-noteworthy and ineffective on a strategic level compared to all the other sea units in the game. Same with engineers; they are a small, tactical level unit. Axis & Allies as it is has no way to differentiate them from ordinary infantry… the game is just too big for that. If you have some ideas drawn up for them, I would be interested to listen, but in general, I just don’t see how engineers or torpedo boats fit in.

Trenacker & others,

@Trenacker:

combat engineers are obvious next sculpts.
––After closely studying HBG’s evolution of their Global Warfare-1939 and then their up-coming 1936 / 1939 version I think that there’s a very good chance of having Engineers / Naval “Sea Bees” to go along with their emphasis on several levels of
air field / air base / seaplane bases.

Tall Paul

@Trenacker:

Horse cavalry made an appearance for minor powers. I think it was certainly decisive in many of the secondary theaters.

Sure, I agree… I would say perhaps even tertiary theaters as opposed to secondary though. Axis & Allies does not have the scale to focus on third-rate theaters. Why would you have mounted cavalry in a given territory when you could more easily have a tank or mechanized infantry unit in the same place with better attack, defend and movement attributes?

@Trenacker:

I admit that the current set of units mostly accounts for all the strategic level considerations. Nonetheless, smaller “auxiliary” craft would still be neat. And combat engineers are no less tactical than, say, self-propelled artillery, which is a popular addition.

The difference with self-propelled artillery is that it is easily distinguished from normal artillery: you simply add +1 to movement capability. Adding SPA also does not further complicate the game as engineers would. You would need a whole new set of rules for engineers.

Not that this is impossible to implement or wrong to attempt, my point is only that SPA is far more seamlessly integrated to existing play at the strategic level than engineers would be.

What would you intend for the role of engineers to be? Does having their presence imply the use of fortifications also? If so, we are not entirely on the same page of what level of customization we are talking about.

@Trenacker:

I think it’s a question of placing horse cavalry in certain theaters at the start of the game. I agree that this is really viable only on the Global maps sold by HBG and the larger maps possible in TripleA.

I could understand having mounted cavalry units to begin the game… however not in A&A/HBG Global War. Again, the global scale is far too big to include such a (relatively) limited use unit. Now as for a much larger and more detailed game…

@Trenacker:

The other evening, I added Combat Engineers to my card list, with rules. They can clear the “minefields” improvement and also build both entrenchments and fortifications.

A lot of the secondary units offered by HBG, FMG, and other retailers are superfluous to the current game design and functionally redundant on the current maps. Their addition is also hampered by the d6 system. I’m envisioning something much larger, working with at least a d12, as well as a much larger map. My theory is that if people are willing to play a 10+ hour game, they will be willing to play a much longer one also.

… Now I see where the disconnect is. My frame of reference for ‘customization’ related to modifying A&A/HBG Global War roughly on the scale they currently are. That means D6, same/similar number of territories and general map size and global strategic level gameplay.

Your ambition is big and very cool. I would count myself among many who always want for a bigger map with more units, more territories and more detail. I am one of those who is willing to play a 10-hour game and would also play one far longer. But my design (for my own purposes) is a little more practical. I return to my comment about simplicity… Axis&Allies is already a relatively complex boardgame, but it is quite user-friendly with some experience. The more you add phases, space and options, the more you will slow down individual turns and the game. The simpler and more straightforward the rules and units are, the more fun the game will be. I do believe that there is a sweet spot of ideal gameplay between basic and gigantic. (Basic being the A&A Original/Revised scale and gigantic being something larger and more detailed than Global 40/Global War.)

Your “much larger map” will have to be truly gigantic if you intend to model fortifications, entrenchments and minefields. There may be limited ways to model an amalgamation of these things at the Global War scale, but you are suggesting something that is very tactical. You would almost have to have a game on the scale of a region (A&A D-Day) or an individual city to make minefields, entrenchments and engineers to be individual game components.

@Trenacker:

I’m thinking of some of the maps already seen on TripleA.

Minefields are perhaps too much. I think cavalry are quite viable for a game that covers the WW1 or interwar eras.

In this case, enrichments and fortifications will mean a fortified territory or a trench network of very large scale. More like a series of forts and strongpoints.

Been a very long time since I played TripleA, and I did not experiment much, so your horizons are broader than mine.

And I wondered after the fact if you meant fortifications on the scale of the Maginot Line or Atlantic Wall as opposed to something much more localized. That does make sense.