Fortunes of Victory - New Cards

If I have time, I will go back to the google drive and look the others over. However, as I said, it would be much easier for me and others to participate in the discussion if you just embedded the cards here. Or even attached them to posts, something you should have privileges to do by now.

It is difficult for me to give you accurate feedback on the cards without a more defined scope of the game you intend for them to be used in. My impression is that this game or board does not truly exist yet, since you like the GW39 map but would like a bigger one. That is not wrong, it just poses problems because it can be difficult to evaluate individual unit or card value if you don’t know what they will be played on… or, more importantly, the rule set used. I am not saying you must define this completely, it just appears that your scale is much grander than G40 and some of the unit characteristics are different.

All that said, there are elements here that I do like and others that don’t really fit my tastes.

Salvage may be a ripoff, but it is a good and simple little advantage. I would impose some more qualifiers to the card though. Only in one territory per round, only so many times a game… something like that. Unless you intend for it to be unlimited, which may become kinda ridiculous. Like a self-regenerating army.

The French Foreign Legion is also simple and readily implemented. Gives France a minute amount of added purpose and puts a few pebbles in the way of the Axis advance.

You are correct about the Afrika Korps unit name.

The Torpedo Squadron card name just seems kind of generic. Do you intend that there will be more than one of these cards? Or that it is usable by multiple Powers?

@Trenacker:

And yes, the first thing to do probably would be to design a new map. Do you know of anybody who is interested in that sort of thing? I’m afraid I wouldn’t know where to start.

A lot of people here modify existing maps like G40 and earlier ones, but those keep essentially the same size and number of territories, so I doubt it would suit your purposes.

I am very interested in re-drawing a map and in fact have already begun. I am not satisfied with G40 OOB map as I would like many of the territories revised and a slightly larger size. I like the HBG Global War 39 map; size is better and territories are better, but it still has flaws (for my purposes). I am not completely confident in HBGs GW39 2nd Ed. map yet either, though the design has improved.

Anyway, I have blown up a picture of the GW39 map and have been tracing out the territories and sea zones so I have a base from which to modify things. I am still early in the process. I imagine the end size will be the same as HBGs large map 47" x 96"… although I am considering revising the aspect ratio so that certain landforms are not so distorted.

@Trenacker:

Basically, the player plays X IPC’s to play a card from their hand. If it’s a unit, that unit is placed during the deployment phase. If it is an action like Salvage, they get to do that once, unless otherwise specified. I have tried to cost out everything appropriately.

I see. I didn’t know there was a cost to play the card. Did you say how cards are collected? Are they just one per turn or do you get them after completing objectives? I hope you don’t have to buy them, because it would be less worthwhile if you have to pay for the card and then pay again to use it.

@Trenacker:

I think the key to modding A&A is that, no matter the design, you need to stay true to why people play this particular game.

First, they want to move little plastic men and roll dice. If there are chits, they must not represent units.

Second, they want to engage in at least a partial historical simulation. There’s a reason the game is “Axis & Allies,” not “Guys & Tanks.”

Third, they want to play a game of minimum complexity.

I am of the opinion that, for somebody who plays A&A, the question of how long is less important than how exhausting.

Any map I participated in designing would be larger than the original. It would also include a number of magnified “cut-outs” around the borders for those territories that tend to be jam-packed with units.

I completely agree on all your points. Simplicity is fundamentally important. The challenge for me becomes improving existing game mechanics without really adding a whole lot of unnecessary bits. My intention is to leave A&A traditional elements, phases and pieces exactly as they are, but to modify rules for the pieces, add to the map and re-shape the victory conditions. This should not alter the game itself at all, just allow for different approaches when playing.

@Trenacker:

I know a great mapmaker. Maybe we can dragoon him.

Haha, that would be excellent. I am good with maps, but I do not have any true image editing software at this time. I hear there is a free Photoshop-like program you can download though.

@Trenacker:

I think that new core gameplay mechanics can be added. They will succeed if they avoid infringing upon any of the core reasons that people play A&A.

For example, I think that it might be possible to add a Political Influence tracker that affects the behavior of neutrals (here, I am using that term broadly, to include countries such as Argentina, Spain, Finland, Romania, and Siam). The Political Influence tracker can be packaged as a separate play aid placed to one side of the map, or else printed somewhere on the edges of the map itself. This would be one use for chits.

I think that major railroads should be printed on the map. Plastic markers can be used to indicate when a rail line is either cut or extended.

Weather effects can be added for specific regions on the board. Possibly, players could roll before any naval engagement while the fleets do a “search.” Carriers might lend bonuses to find the enemy, representing their air groups.

All of this sounds cool and would work with a large map, but it definitely adds complexity to an already complex game. There are a lot of rules and phases in the OOB game, which can be intimidating enough for a new player. Your propositions would significantly slow gameplay and add multiple new layers of politics, logistics and tactics.

I briefly considered how railroads could be implemented, but then figured it would probably make mechanized units obsolete. The only railroad I would include is a line on the map for the Trans-Siberian RR.

Dude… you have got to check out HBGs new Global War series. I am just finding out a lot about this myself. The Global War 1936-1945 game is supposed to be released next month.

This gets into almost all the stuff you just mentioned. The games are going to start in 1850 and move all the way up through 2025. The board is huge (bigger than G40) and full of more intricate elements including the possibility for the CSA. I think your game may already be here.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30805.msg1458230#new
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36323.15

http://www.historicalboardgaming.com/Global-War-1936-1945-Variant-Map-PREORDER_p_2029.html?mc_cid=5adafb82dc&mc_eid=e2bfc39772
http://www.historicalboardgaming.com/Proposed-Games_c_550.html