Lateset version:
The initial text were simply working labels. The spelling was fixed as I went along (not saying there aren’t anymore spelling errors in there somewhere).
The names of of Nations are in red with the regions within that nation labelled in black. Some nations comprise only one region (like Israel) while other nations only have one region represented on the map (like Romania and the Ukraine). The Crimean Peninsula is part of the Ukraine. I suppose I could label the region “Crimea (Ukraine)” or something as such.
I could have expanded the map northwards to include more of the Ukraine and Romania but then I risk losing a focus on the area where I want the fighting to occur. The same problem exists to the east with Afghanistan and Pakistan being only partially represented. Also, Sudan and Eithiopia are significantly curtailed. The cut off line has to be drawn somewhere.
The text is not going to be difficult to read once the map is blown up to its proper proportions.
Progress continues. Iran, Egypt and Saudi Arabia remain. Then the real fun of assigning IPC values and determining victory cities begins.
Your making alot of progess, good going. I would at least add Afghanistan and Pakistan, they are such an important part of this area today, i dont understand leaving them out. It would be cool to include the Ukraine and Mog, but I understand you have to limit the the scope of the game at some point. Just add Afhganistan and Pakistan. I would also bring the US back into the game otherwise the only countires with serious militaries will be Russia, Turkey and Isreal, along with maybe Iran or Pakistan. The US military has lots of cool techs that would be fun to have in this game. And I dont see how this game is going to be relaistic and give Iraq a powerful military or stable goverment without US assitance.
Also have you considered making the game 3 or 5 sided instead of the normal 2 sides? Four sided would probably turn the game into somthing similar to 2 sides, while 6 or seven would be to many sides for an A&A game.
Expanding the map to inlcude all of afghanistan and pakistan would also open up the Arabia Sea for Naval battles. Right now it seems that this game is going to be dominated by land warfare, having the Arbian Sea would really open up option in the game. it would be a shame if naval units were not used in this variant, after all they are half the units in the game.
Afghanistan and Pakistan are partially represented on the map. I’m going to assume for the purposes of my scenario that they are too distracted by India to get too involved in the Middle East.
The USA is indirectly represented in the game by their backing of Saudi Arabia. For all intents and purposes Saudi Arabia is the USA in this game. Once again, the US is largely concerned with events unfolding elsewhere in the world.
As far as Iraq is concerned, Russia is supposed to be backing Iraq heavily. With US resolve and morale weakened to the point that they pretty much abandon Iraq and the middle east (stretching it. I know), Russia steps into the power vacuum and re-arms the Iraqi forces.
I did consider making this an everyone sticks all game and it will still be very possible as a variant in the future. However, in my experience what tends to happen if you don’t have teams is that someone always gets shafted facing two or three opponents. Also, individual players encourages a turtling strategy. No one wants to make bold, aggresive moves for fear of being ganged up on or weaken themselves and leave themsleves vulnerable to others. In addition there always seems to be that one player who manages to avoid any major fighting in the early and middle part of the game. At the end, after everyone has been weakened due to fighting eath other, the player who has been avoiding conflict and building his/her forces steps in and dominates. There is also a potential for king making in free for all games. king making is when a player can’t really win a game but he/she can decide who can. You kno - “Well, you’ve annoyed me the whole game so I’m throwing everything I have at you even though it will mean utter defeat for me also, I know you won’t win!”. Finally, free for all games are much more difficult to playtest and achieve a real game balance.
Team vs team, scenario type games are just easier to design in the beggining. So that’s what I’m starting out with.
You are correct about the focus on ground combat though. I am thinking about incorporating some victory point or IPC type areas at sea (offshore oil fields, shipping routes etc…).
Oh here’s the latest version of the map by the way:
Wow awesome game concept. Keep up the good work.+1
THis map just keeps getting better and better!
I still think you should include all of AfPak and the all of the arabian sea aswell as makaing the sotryline more beleiveable, but I guess you can change or add that later after some playtesting.
What are the rules for combat going to be, you should probably make them different so that this game is even more unquie and so you capture the feel of what modern conventional warfare is like, aswell as adding rules for some sort of unnnconvential war.
I think you going to have to rework the rules for naval combat, especailly the carrier and battleship peices, since battleships are not used anymore and only Russia has aircraft carriers. This is why you should include the Arbaian sea, India, and the US. The US has awesome carriers and it is beleivable that India will soon have carriers. The Arbian Sea gives everyone a place to fight in with their navy.
Also, what are think each turn will represent in terms of time?
I usually consider a turn in A&A to be 3 too 6 months, but this game has a more limited scope and everything in modern war is faster, so what is each turn going to represent?
What unit types are you planning on using?
I think you should name the game Jihad.
Don’t forget the suicide/car bombers :-D
At first the rules for combat are just going to be the standard Axis and Allies rules with some new units thrown in. I do have ideas and plans to make my own set of rules, but that going to wait until later.
I intend to use the following units
Infantry C3 A1 D2 M1
Mobile Inf C4 A1 D1 M2
Artillery C4 A2 D2 M1 (infantry support)
Mobile Art. C5 A2 D2 M2 (infantry support)
Tank C5 A3 D3 M2
Heavy Tank C6 A4 D3 M2
Helicopter C8 A2 D3 M4 (tank hunter)
Fighter C10 A3 D4 M6
Bomber C15 A4 D1 M8
Missile C5 A4 D0 M8 (one use)
Cargo Plane C10 A0 D1 M8 (transport 1 inf or 1 other unit during non-combat)
Submarine C8 A2 D2 M2 (first strike, submerge)
Destroyer C8 A2 D2 M2 (sonar)
Cruiser C12 A2 D2 M2 (bombard)
Battleship C22 A4 D4 M2 (bombard, 2 hits)
Carrier C15 A1 D3 M2 (transport 2 non-bomber air units, 2 hits)
Transport C8 A0 D1 M2 (transport 1 Inf + 1 other unit)
I wanted each turn to represent about 1 week of fighting however, this is one of those fudge factors that comes up in gaming. In reality there would little to no time for construction of major combat units in the modern war I’m trying to simulate. When you consider the entire war could be over in a matter of weeks, how can a nation possibly build entire infantry or tank divisions, squadrons of aircraft and/or fleets of warships? If you really want to do it realistically each nation should start with an order of battle and then each turn would receive set reinforcements as reserve formations are prepared (something like Axis & Allies D-day). After the first few turns all the forces would be in play with little or nothing following.
The problem is the collecting and spending of IPC’s is such an elegant and interesting mechanic, I don’t want to lose it. So I’ll just call it a flexible reserve activation method.
More to come.
Well IPCs can represent the nation ability to mobilze its nation.
Nice to see new units.
The missile unit looks really powerful, i would say too powerful with a range of eight!. I would accauly incldued two missile units in the game. One short range that can fire 2 space away, and another that is medium range that can fire from six spaces away but costs 10. I think you should also be able too load these missiles up on certain ships, subs, and aircraft aswell so that they can be fired from their.
Also, for your land units, I think its just going to add confusion too the board if you have two varaints of the same unit, while not adding a whole lot of strategy and fun since they the new units are not that different from the old ones.
I think some more exciting options for land warfare would be units like special forces or marines. Special forces could have some sort of support bonus or they could allow you to train forces in countries that are not your own, or they could have some ability to attack cities or oil fields. They could have an ability simialr to subs, accept that they “submerge” on land.
Marines could have a bonus in amphibious assaults and be easir to carrry in transports.
Also I would rename heavy Armor advacned armor, since how big a tank is in modern warfare does not correspond to how powerful it is as much as it did in World War 2. Or you coudl call the heavy tank a Main Battle Tank.
Also, almost all infantry today are motorized or mechanized, so the mobile infantry peice should be the main unit in an army, when you are figureing out the setup. I also feel infantry unit should be renamed light infantry, and it should be able to be transported in helecopters and 2 should fit in a cargo plane. Cargo planes should also be renamed transport aircraft, to give the game a more military and official feal.
Also, helocopters should get some kind of bonus when fighting tanks, like you said they are tank hunters.
For the navy, you should scracth the battleship, since that is not used asmore. Instead call it a Frigate, and make it orienated to fighting off aircraft and cruise missle, also lower its cost. Accaully all the naval unit should have lower cost, otherwise cruise missles are going to be deveistating against them, although cruise missles should remaine more effective against naval units than land units.
Also, why havnt you included Surface-to-Air missile sites, otherwisw their wont be anything to fill the role of the AA gun
Just my thoughts, keep up the good work!
There is nowhere to run for naval pieces. This will be Jihad “the mother of all battles”
I wanted each turn to represent about 1 week of fighting however, this is one of those fudge factors that comes up in gaming. In reality there would little to no time for construction of major combat units in the modern war I’m trying to simulate. When you consider the entire war could be over in a matter of weeks, how can a nation possibly build entire infantry or tank divisions, squadrons of aircraft and/or fleets of warships? If you really want to do it realistically each nation should start with an order of battle and then each turn would receive set reinforcements as reserve formations are prepared (something like Axis & Allies D-day). After the first few turns all the forces would be in play with little or nothing following. The problem is the collecting and spending of IPC’s is such an elegant and interesting mechanic, I don’t want to lose it. So I’ll just call it a flexible reserve activation method.
I guess another way to help explain it (at least as far as equipment is concerned) might be to assume that some of it is being purchased from foreign sources (outside the Middle East theatre in which the game is set) and that it’s being shipped to the buyers out of existing inventories (rather than being built on demand, which in a short regional war would take too long for complex modern weapons). The existing inventories could consist either of weapons built specifically for export by countries (like North Korea) which sell a lot of military equipment to foreign nations, or they could be surplus older material no longer needed by the country of origin (like those surplus World War I destroyers which the U.S. transferred to Great Britain early in World War II).
@CWO:
I guess another way to help explain it (at least as far as equipment is concerned) might be to assume that some of it is being purchased from foreign sources (outside the Middle East theatre in which the game is set) and that it’s being shipped to the buyers out of existing inventories (rather than being built on demand, which in a short regional war would take too long for complex modern weapons). The existing inventories could consist either of weapons built specifically for export by countries (like North Korea) which sell a lot of military equipment to foreign nations, or they could be surplus older material no longer needed by the country of origin (like those surplus World War I destroyers which the U.S. transferred to Great Britain early in World War II).
That is certainly part of what is going on behind the curtains when nations spend IPC’s in my game however, it still doesn’t explain why your IPC total increases when you conquer enemy territory. With the basic A&A model you are capturing enemy resources and industrial areas (which is represented by the IPC total) and converting those resources into cash which you use to buy units. In the conflict I’m postulating here there would certainly be little or no time for Iraq to conquer an Iranian industrial area, re-tool it to manufacture Iraqi vehicles and arms and deploy those units in the field. Modern warfare moves too fast for that (given that I’m aiming for weekly turns).
One of the work arounds I was considering (other than ignoring the issue since the basic flow of A&A works well) is to have multiple rounds of combat and non-combat moves before a build new units round (for example: everyone performs three sets of combat and non-combat moves then everyone builds). My only concern here is that if someone breaks through a defensive line then they can push on and capture loads of enemy territory before any new units can be built to stop them (this could be desireable however).
Well IPCs can represent the nation ability to mobilze its nation.
See post above.
Nice to see new units.
The missile unit looks really powerful, i would say too powerful with a range of eight!. I would accauly incldued two missile units in the game. One short range that can fire 2 space away, and another that is medium range that can fire from six spaces away but costs 10. I think you should also be able too load these missiles up on certain ships, subs, and aircraft aswell so that they can be fired from their.
You did see that the missiles are expendable. As in when you fire them they are gone. They only get one shot then removed from play. Note this is one combat roll only. Not one entire combat. So they get one good shot in the first round of combat and that’s it. Also they can be used for Strategic Bombing. Also note that they are susceptible to AA fire.
Also, for your land units, I think its just going to add confusion too the board if you have two varaints of the same unit, while not adding a whole lot of strategy and fun since they the new units are not that different from the old ones.
Well, I did want to go for additional detail in this game. The main difference is that the mechanized units have an additional movement point which is a huge advantage to be able to keep up with the armour. If a nation is on the defensive and need to maximize combat power they can save a bit of money by purchasing the non-mechanized units. A mobile/mechanized unit represents serious support in terms of armoured vehicles and logistics. I assume that standard, non-mechanized units also utilize motorized transport (in the form of trucks or other such vehicles) its just that they are not as capable or as reliable as the mechanized form of the unit and hence they are not afforded the additional movement point. In addition, mobile Infantry take up more room on transports (ie: a transport can carry 1 non-mobile infantry + 1 other unit) and cannot be used for airborne operations (inserted via transport planes).
I think some more exciting options for land warfare would be units like special forces or marines. Special forces could have some sort of support bonus or they could allow you to train forces in countries that are not your own, or they could have some ability to attack cities or oil fields. They could have an ability simialr to subs, accept that they “submerge” on land.
Special forces and marines while interesting introduce another two types of infantry which would be a pain in the neck to get pieces for. I might consider marines, but I’d rather leave special forces to some kind of tech advantage or an action card or something. Also, if these unit types are introduced then it brings up the whole “why isn’t there a dedicated paratrooper unit?” debate.
Also I would rename heavy Armor advacned armor, since how big a tank is in modern warfare does not correspond to how powerful it is as much as it did in World War 2. Or you coudl call the heavy tank a Main Battle Tank.
The Heavy Tank is actually called advanced tank but I shortened the name so that it would fit into a chart I’m making (same for the cargo plane which is actually a transport aircraft). The normal tank unit represents older, less capable models held in inventory and the Advnaced Armour is a cutting edge MBT.
Also, almost all infantry today are motorized or mechanized, so the mobile infantry peice should be the main unit in an army, when you are figureing out the setup. I also feel infantry unit should be renamed light infantry, and it should be able to be transported in helecopters and 2 should fit in a cargo plane. Cargo planes should also be renamed transport aircraft, to give the game a more military and official feal.
addressed above.
Also, helocopters should get some kind of bonus when fighting tanks, like you said they are tank hunters.
Helicopters have the “Tank Hunter” special ability. Each Helicopter unit present in battle reduces the combat value of enemy tanks by 1 (either attack or defend value). This makes regular tanks defend at only 1 against helicopters! I didn’t want to allow Helicopters to transport infantry because Apache’s cannot morph into Chinooks. Also, that would make them really powerful and the cost would have to go up considerably (although it would be cool to mount air mobile helicopter borne operations).
For the navy, you should scracth the battleship, since that is not used asmore. Instead call it a Frigate, and make it orienated to fighting off aircraft and cruise missle, also lower its cost. Accaully all the naval unit should have lower cost, otherwise cruise missles are going to be deveistating against them, although cruise missles should remaine more effective against naval units than land units.
The battleship represents either and old WWII battleship which has been modernized (Iowa class) or the heavy Soviet battle cruiser designs (Kirov class). There were only to be few of these units on the board at start and I didn’t really expect anyone to buy them. I could just amp their cost up to prevent anyone from purchasing them (or just outlaw buying them). I think I’ll change the two smaller naval vessels to Frigate and Cruiser (Frigates are smaller and less capable vessels than destroyers or cruisers). The Frigate will be the sub hunter and Cruisers will be the anti-air unit. I’m considering making each naval unit count as an AA gun and the cruisers count as AA guns hitting on 2 or less. This way you’ll have to saturate a naval force with numerous missiles and aircraft to get enough through to do damage. I’ll think on it more.
Also, why havnt you included Surface-to-Air missile sites, otherwisw their wont be anything to fill the role of the AA gun
AA guns are in the game (named Anti-Air missiles). They just didn’t get listed. They will not be capable of rocket attacks (that’s what the cruise missiles are for).
I didn’t list the factories either. I’m considering adding a heavy factory to the unit mix. A heavy factory can be represented by having two factory pieces present in the space (for lack of a bigger heavier factory piece) and it will allow you to build twice the IPC value in pieces there.
Keep the feedback coming.
With eigth spaces of range, rockets are going to be able to pick off the most expenisve units. It should be reduced to at least six so their is at least some strategy is deploying them, and that their are battle for terriotroies simply so one side can launch rockets from their.
I steel, dont see the rational for the BB, none of these countries have(I guess Russia might still have a few, but they are not building more of them) or would want this kind of ship. And if the peice is going to be too expensive to b e useful, you should just get rid of that peice.
Here is my prosal for how land combat and production should work
I like the idea of only having production rounds every three turns. I would have everyone buld at the same time(in secret) after three turns.
To make sure that it is possible to predict moves for the next three turns, I propose that all land units can only move one space, except that their is an a second combat round in each turn that only certain units can attack in and particpate in.
Light Infantry C3 A1 D2 M1
Mech Infantry C4 A1 D2 M1, may attack in the second combat phase
Artillery C4 A2 D2 M1, support
Self-Propelled Artillery C5 A4 D1 M1, may attack in the second combat phase
Armor C5 A3 D2 M1,may attack in the second combat phase
Main Battle Tank C6 A4 D3 M1,may attack in the second combat phase
I think this allows for the incopoation of the new production rules, while adding increaced diveristy in the land units.
In addition combat could be limited to one or two rounds. After the first or second round, if the attack has not won he must retreat. He may then attack that same terrtory again in the second combat move phase.
Did I explain that clearly?
And yes include a deck of cards. The deck should have at be 50+ cards, with over 10 different types of card.
Also, some stratgic redaployment should be added to the game, each nation should be able to move a certain amount of units with in their owrn terriotry.
For instance
SR
Russia: 5
Iraq: 4
Tukery: 3
Iran: 3
Egypt: 2
Saudi Arabia:1
Also, how about rule for chemical and nuclear warfare? Missiles should be able to be tipped with a nuclear warhead, and artillery should be able to fire chemical weapons.
I was was thinking about the plot/storyline/reason for the war.
I think the game makes much more sence if it take place somewhere between 1996-2000. The Soveit Union has collapsed but it is before 9/11 so the US does not have huge amounts of forces in the region.
Once the way start it takes 3 months before the US gets involved, so this game will cover the three months before the US involvment in the war.
If a month is reprsented buy a build turn + 3 movement/combat turns, then the game will be three sets of those, and which ever side has accomplished the most objectives my then wins!
Here’s what I’ve been working on. I’ve really been trying to nail down the combat sequence and the units.
Some quick comments on combat that may not be evident at first.
-Units only have one Combat Value (CV). No Attack & Defend rating. However…
-Generally, the defender fires first and the attacker removes his casualties before returning fire. This obviously gives the defender a natural advantage.
-At the start of battle, air units are assigned either Air to Air or Air to Ground.
-Fighters fight at 4 in Air to Air but 1/2 (ie:2) in Air to Ground. Helicopters & Bombers fight at full strength in Air to Ground mode (4 & 2) but fight at 1/2 in Air to Air mode.
-Air to Air hits must be taken by enemy air units (never naval or ground units).
-Air to Ground hits must be taken by Naval or Ground units (never enemy air units).
-At the start of each round of combat, players can move their air units around between Air to Air and Air to Ground modes.
-Defending air units can retreat from battle.
-AA guns are now units that shoot once each prior to battle. In other words you can (and should) buy multiple guns to defend important positions.
-Frigates and Cruisers also act as AA guns.
So assume that the accuracy of the missles in the Middle East is very suspect especially if they are homegrown: ( If US or USSR made there is no accuracy problem they always hit)
So if the range is 8 thay only hit on a 6
If the range is 7 they hit on a 5 or 6
If the range is 6 they hit on a 4 5 or 6
etc etc
if the range is one they automatically hit
or use an 8 sided die instead of a 6 sided die as above
Perhaps use this:
or on a range of ____ throw 2 die if they are both evens they hit
or on a range of ____ throw 3 die if they are all evens they hit.
etc etc however you wish
Just some ideas and thoughts for your consideration
How, that is quite an advantage you are giving the defender, i think i like it.
you should come up with a starting set-up so you can accaully start playtesting.
And what do you think about reducing the movement of tanks to 1 in the combat phase unless they are blitzing? and what about blitzing allowing units to attack an occupied territroy and then another occupied territory?
And what do you think about my idea for the starting date/scenario/background?
I still feel missle ranges are too long.
Also, what are you doing for a tech chart if any?
And what about chemical and nuclear warfare?
I was thinking about your IPC dilemma. What if all nations started with a set IPC income. Then, as territories are captured, the defender losses the income for the territory, but the attacker gains no benefit. This works better for your time scale and “flexible unit pool” ideas. Basically it would work the same as convoy zones in AAP. The motivation is still there for the attacker as you would be harming your opponent’s ability to mobilize new forces against you.
Hey Holden,
Any more work on this project?
I was wondering what happened to this project.
