Xeno Games's World at War (1939 version of A&A)
-
I wasn’t aware there was a 2nd edition.
The only added feature from the new version that I think it needs would be artillery. I don’t think its needs the new tank defense because you will always have infantry at the front due to the build rule and the rail movement you can use to reinforce newly conquered territory.
Now that I’m thinking about it. The game could use the fighter escort rule for Industrial bombing.
-
I personally don’t like the “build trained infantry divisions in the middle of nowhere” rule myself. I think it makes the Axis’s job much harder than it needs to be AND substantially dumbs down the strategy. Transports? Who needs 'em?!! Just build infantry right there in the middle of the Belgian Congo right smack in the middle of the jungle! Personally, I would prefer to give Britain an IC in India, the Free French an IC in a random Free French territory determined when you do the Vichy French rolls and then go at it. As the rules currently stand, there are no “fronts” because you can literally build anywhere at any time as long as you own the territory. Granted, it’s limited to infantry, but that makes little difference IMHO.
I am going to research these 5th edition rules to see if they address this at all. Among the innovations I would vote to adopt from Revised would be:
1. Make battleships self-healing if not destroyed in combat.
2. Make Cruisers attack and defend at “3” (except during shore bombardment – keep that at “2”)
3. Adopt the artillery piece (as Mr. Ghoul suggests)
4. Increase the tank’s defensive value to “3”
5. Reduce the cost of fighters by $1 for each country (but keep the difference in prices – I think that adds a little something to the mix)WG
-
P.S. – They don’t have the fighter escort rule in Revised. There is a reason for that – you don’t have that many fighters to waste on dumb strategic bombing missions. That rule was invented for use in A&AE as a strategy to crush Russia.
-
Okay, here is the link to the FOURTH edition rules, which appear to be the most current on the Xeno Games website:
http://xenoserver.no-ip.info/wawrules.htm
They do address infantry builds in far-away places – you pay an additional 1 IPC per off-IPC build and are limited to building 1 infantry per territory. But my question remains – why have this rule at all? Maybe keep it for the Free French and the Chinese, but otherwise, I would can it.
And they DO have fighter escorts for strategic bombing – go figure.
I’m still reading . . .
-
Not to honk my horn but im probably the guy who will be remaking Xenos next map for World At War and probably a revamped version of Europe at War.
-
@Imperious:
Not to honk my horn but im probably the guy who will be remaking Xenos next map for World At War and probably a revamped version of Europe at War.
Honk all you like! :-)
I actually purchased Europe at War and Russia at War (new in the box – unopened – off e-bay!) but have no one to play them with. Do you want to weigh in on any of the issues we are discussing? I understand how game development works (having worked with Imp Games before on some of their stuff), but what can you tell us about the changes being considered?
Some general observations about the map: (1) East Australia should be more than 2 seazones from India – the East Australian SZ should probably be split in half; (2) the Atlantic needs to be reworked to make the Irish Sea more than 2 clicks from Germany; (3) what about convoy spaces like A&AE (in lieu of the clunky roll a dice to determine convoy damage)?
General rules observations – bag the repairable BB rule (too complicated). Replace with self-healing BBs. Also, why do Cruisers attack at 2 and defend at 3? I’ve never understood that. Finally, Russia purchasing infantry at 2 is REALLY tough for the Axis to overcome. This is the Infantry Push Mechanic on steroids!!!
Don’t get me wrong – love the game. Just want to see it even better! :wink:
-
Some general observations about the map: (1) East Australia should be more than 2 seazones from India – the East Australian SZ should probably be split in half; (2) the Atlantic needs to be reworked to make the Irish Sea more than 2 clicks from Germany; (3) what about convoy spaces like A&AE (in lieu of the clunky roll a dice to determine convoy damage)?
++++++++ I suspect they want to keep some of the old strategy’s alive that were possible under 2nd edition. Aus should be split in two and that convoy box idea would be a good idea but AAE had too many of them in a small area. Possibly we could determine the % of trade that facilitated a nations economy (or that was dependant on it) and make some inferences accordingly. I feel the entire idea of WAW was to copy the milton bradley game and make a few new territories. It was designed a long time ago and the new ownership of Xeno wants to maintain the flavor of that. Thus i dont see any changes coming as you propose.
General rules observations – bag the repairable BB rule (too complicated). Replace with self-healing BBs. Also, why do Cruisers attack at 2 and defend at 3? I’ve never understood that. Finally, Russia purchasing infantry at 2 is REALLY tough for the Axis to overcome. This is the Infantry Push Mechanic on steroids!!!
++++++++++++++ Again they took a number of ideas and window dressed the game to add historical flavor. I dont see what the problem with paying for a repair but i admit its easier to just use the revised rule. Id give germany 2 IPC infantry as well to balance. But in any event infantry buys should not exceed 50% of total income.
-
I’ve never had a problem at all with the rules as they are, or should I say as they were, for Xeno’s World at War. The game was designed to be difficult, as mentioned, for the Axis, very difficult. If someone is changing rules to balance the game, thats fine, but its only being done in the interest of gameplay, not historical accuracy. Not that this game or any A&A game is the epitome of historically accurate games.
Our group had fun trying to find a way to win with the axis.
Going back to the infantry build rule.
I don’t mind this rule either. I can understand someone having issues with it, as one in our gaming group did, but it makes some sense. Why couldn’t Britain support the raising of the local population into an army in African controlled territory? However, it makes less sense when Germany captures a Russia terrortiy and, after having held it for a round, places infantry there on the next build phase.
Maybe a nation should only be allowed to build infantry, up to the territories value, in certain areas. For instance, Germany could build infantry in any game starting territory plus countries like Spain or turkey, Romania(I don’t remember if this is starting territory of not) and Finland.If this rule is changed then there should be a modification to rail movement. Maybe doubling the amount of infantry that can be ship per nation.
Really, though, I think I like it the way it is or was.
Russia purchasing infantry at 2 is REALLY tough for the Axis to overcome. This is the Infantry Push Mechanic on steroids!!!
Based on the amount of IPCs the Russia are making they kind of need this. If they were paying 3 ipcs like Germany, the war would be over quick in Germany’s favor.
-
FINALLY!!! A good rip-rorring discussion of W@W – exactly what I hoped would happen. :-D
Mr. Ghoul – I hear you on Russia’s economy. Some balancing is needed to avoid an easy Axis victory. But 2 IPC infantry? That’s tough. Maybe you’re right – maybe it should be tough. But if the only way I can win against a good opponent is to get some lucky dice rolls . . .
As for the building infantry in far away places, sure, Britain MIGHT raise an army of natives, but are they going to be the equivalent of the Royal Army or the Weirmacht soldiers? I think NOT. Maybe this infantry should attack and defend on a 1 or something.
What does everyone think about adding the artillery unit to W@W? I could see it working to the DISADVANTAGE of the Axis, what, with all that Russian infantry running around – imagine them paired up with artillery!!! (ouch!)
Anyone up for a PBF game? It can be slow, it can wait until after the Revised tournament, whatever. I’d just like to play it again and ABattlemap has the map with pieces, so why not? What say you?
WG
-
I just read over the 4th edition rules. Thanks for the link WG.
It appears they made alot of subtle changes.
I like the rule that removes transports last in navy combat.
I dont like the extra ipc for 1 infantry placement outside factory.
I kind of like the the limit on AAguns (3 per piece). It forces you to buy more.
I Don’t like the convoy rules. It seems a bit weighted down.
I really don’t like the levels of damage/production to/for factories.
I don’t like bonus given to Germany for their first attack(limit one area) into Russia +1/-1(if this is not a added rule, I do not ever remember using it)
And I don’t like the new technologiesKamikazi is something you should not have to research.
The German Tiger/King is silly. The game takes place on a grand scale it is not necessary to lable armor types. SS panzer units are enough. The armor piece you buy represents all types of tanks and assult guns and maybe even self-propelled arty.
It just seems too bogged down. Unnecessary.I should note that I do like some of the techs.
-
Last time I talked to Mike “Xeno” he said that he had a stack of E@W maps so was not looking to do an update.
Yes thats correct… but when he does sell the inventory he will not reprint but rather make another version. This is further along down the pipeline. Dont expect anything for a few years. The WAW thing is something that is in a much shorter window. But that too requires the inventory to be first sold.
-
I suspect you people dont actually use the pieces from Xeno games right? They are so poorly made Id only use them for neutrals.
-
Imperious,
Yes, they are cheaply made. But because their coloration differs from the original MB pieces, they’re convenient to use for ss panzer units or ss panzer grenadiers or Russian guards in order to distinguish them from the regular units.
-
I’m moving this to the A&A Variants forum because that is what this is.
-
Okay, all you fence-sitters. Mr Ghoul and I are starting our match under “Games in Progress” if you want to follow along.
Game on!
WG
-
@Imperious:
I suspect you people dont actually use the pieces from Xeno games right? They are so poorly made Id only use them for neutrals.
There are no other A&A blue sets. So you kind of need them.
Besides, who would go to war aithout the white russians….
Squirecam
-
For blue you just buy a can of french blue and order more pieces from hasbro. You can just order the map and rules from Xeno (i did) and save on all the fluff and use revised pieces. If your lazy then YES you too can own the neon orange and green plastic bits
-
I’ve dealt with the infantry recruitment dilemma by including a limited number of “recruitment depots” on the map. These reflect those areas where a power did assemble troops, or might have recruited troops if they held that area. Only one can be built per turn, and only by a specific power if it controls that territory.
For example Britain starts in control of Italian East Africa. But this only has an Italian infantry depot (native Askaris) so the UK cannot place a new infantry here. But if the Italians recapture the territory they can place a new inf here on their next turn supposing they still control it.
In some cases I had to speculate as to who would be able to recruit soldiers in which territories, as they never came under the appropriate control in history.
I don’t think this limited placement is unbalancing; it’s only one inf per turn and powers did recruit infantry units in colonies.I also have the “Osttruppen” rule, whereby whenever Germany/Italy capture a territory from the Soviets they gain one free infantry to represent local anti-communists joining up. Germany had over 1 million Soviet citizens in it’s army at one point. Of course these were not front-line quality, but by occupying rear echelon roles they did free up better troops for the cutting edge battles, so this is not unrealistic.
-
:-o
May I suggest a possible infantry change based on historic facts. Russians had more men, Germans had better equipment and training for their troops not to mention their skill at combined arms tactics. So, why not let the Russians have their cheap infantry buys while giving the Germans a bonus in attack strength, say 2 in attack and 2 in defense when combined with armor or air units, ( no need for Artillary). Now that is what I call an easy fix. Since the germans start out with more tanks and planes than thier opponents they will kick butt early. But when the allies start to build up their combined arms, Germany will be overwhelmed in numbers. So the axis better do a lot of damage real quick to win.
Should be more fun though.
If someone does play-test this in a game could they let me know how it worked out? Thanks.:roll: Crazy Ivan
If something doesn’t work right,
fix it!
I can’t help it, I’m left handed
Suggested Topics
