-
Greetings Fellow Geeks!
I have noticed alot of great ideas and efforts on the geek and in the eaglegames.net forums about what Attack! could have been. I too have played this game with friends, and tweeked it here and there. We have added house rules, tried threaded turns, ect. and I am curious to see what everyone else likes.
Just for the record, I am working on the revision with Mike Selinker (yes, the guy who did the Axis and Allies revision, and brought a whole new life to the series IMHO) and we have made alot of changes already.
I have talked to alot of people at conventions over the years, and am pretty confident we have some great changes in the works. I truly want to take all comments into consideration during the final stages, and welcome anyone who wants to playtest the game before it is released.
Please post ideas, or varriants that you or your groups LOVE. Understand we can not change everything, but if there is something you guys ALL love that we missed, I want to at least consider it!
Ok...Now for the good stuff...
Here is what Mike and I have cooking so far:
1: Threaded turns - For those that do not know, this means everyone takes 1 action at a time, then 2, then 3 (if you have played railroad tycoon, you have used a threaded turn) This increases interaction, and eliminates downtime. It also speeds up the game too!!
2: Naval Dice!! - These are WAY too cool! One of the greatest things about Attack (for me) was the combat system. I always felt that the naval system was not quite right. Naval Dice solve this problem. No longer is it high roller wins (plus modifiers) but instead, roll a symbol, match it up, score a hit (just like a land battle) The prototypes look great. They are blue, with little white subs/destroyers/carriers/battleships on them. Ok...enough spoilers...
3: Simplified, less random economic system - Instead of a random card draw, a specific economic value for every space.
4: Better Tech - Tech will be built in levels, that affect your building, moving, costs and attacks!
5: Refined Political action deck - we are working on lots of ideas, but the general concept is a draw a turn per player with a hand limit. stay tuned...
6: Both maps in 1 box, with all the plastics, bags/trays, new naval dice, new cards, and new rules!!
Anyone still with me? good!!
We need playtesters!! email me if you want to be involved. As I stated above, I would love to hear some of the "house rules" you guys have, but mostly we need playtesters. I will do my best to consider ideas posted here, but we have a nice vision and direction going right now. The truth is, great ideas and visions could always use input, so I issue a call to arms for any and all Attack! fans!!!
FYI - Any posts dated by FEB. 29th or sooner will be heavily considered during the final stage of rules designs. I hope to kick off playtesting in March, and if things go well, submit a finished product in April.
Thanks to any, and all who took the time out of their day to read this, and to those of you who have given your input already. Thanks for helping Mike and I make this the best we can!
Sean
-
Sean Shaw
United States
Georgia
-
I probably won't be able to participate in any testing due to my own schedule, but I do like the ideas of #3-#6.
One of the big problems we didn't really care for actually was the combat dice. It was great in idea, in that it created the need for combined arms, but sort of just killed something for the uniqueness of units in the actual combat for us.
Perhaps it was all the building, and then in one battle a huge force would get decimated, making it so that we would have to crawl across the board spending tons of resources before we even really were prepared to take each other on.
Don't know how to fix that though. I think perhaps if there was something maybe to give units some sort of defense mechanism?
It just seemed missing something, even with the added abilities of the expansion.
Probably because even with that, you'd have a great army of a ton of units, meet up with a neutral and be...neutered with that great army. To wage war we literally had to have more units in an area than could fit in the area in order to attack and then defend the area we were taking.
You said bags and trays? Trays? What sort of trays will be included?
-
Simon Lundström
Sweden
Örbyhus
Now who are these five?
Come, come, all children who love fairy tales.
-
Will there be a "pimp my older edition" available, with the naval dice and stuff? Would be nice…
I am a rather proud owner of Attack! but I have to admit it's only hit the table once. We don't play wargames much, but I'm still very fond of it, as I know it's precisely what I want from a wargame. I'd very much like the opportunity to get this new version without having to buy the whole set again.
-
Jens Christian Koller
Norway
Oslo
Unspecified
-
To shorten playing time I would suggest implementing secret missions (or goals) instead of victory points. I have been thinking in the line of a unique set of goals for each of the ideologies. For instance one of the missions for the facist could be to wipe out the commies (both neutral and player) from europe, or having 5 oil cards on your hand. For longer games one could draw a set of two goals to accomplish or even three for extended games.
-
Англичанин або Англiєць?
Germany
Regensburg
-
Zimeon wrote: Will there be a "pimp my older edition" available, with the naval dice and stuff? Would be nice… I am a rather proud owner of Attack! but I have to admit it's only hit the table once. We don't play wargames much, but I'm still very fond of it, as I know it's precisely what I want from a wargame. I'd very much like the opportunity to get this new version without having to buy the whole set again.
I second Zimeon's request. I own both Attack! and Attack! Expansion, and I'm not going to fork out for a new version of the game, but I would welcome the efforts to make the existing game playable. Would it be possible to buy the extra stuff for those of us who already have the old version of the game?
-
Mr. B @ Rockin' B
United States
Batavia
Ohio
-
No sprues!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#3 sounds great as well as the naval dice!
-
Ramon Zarate
Canada
Vancouver
BC
-
I just wanted to comment that I quite liked naval combat. I'll try to explain why:
First, you had to be aware of fleet composition, building the most ships that counter the ships for your oponent. Secondly, I don't think they were as random, you had to outguess your opponent positioning your ships, it was important were to put your battleship to minimize loses, but putting it on the first position would be easily countered with subs, where the carrier is best suited, etc. We played a lot of attack and we played naval battles as given and we really enjoyed.
Now, I love the combat system of attack, and I love that you can just loose all your infantry before loosing any tank and so, but combat dice for the naval units removes the cool aspect of ships that counter other ships, and makes the naval combat identical to land combat, which for me is not a better solution.
About tech, it sounds cool to go by levels, but it would be great to have multiple branches, it would be great to have a faction with really strong infantry, and one specializing on air power and so. Maybe it's not worth it, but I also toyed with the idea of researching elite units, and make those units more expensive, so maybe you infantry rolls two dice, but costs 7pp or something like that... and it wouls be great to be able to build both, but I guess that requires an unacceptable production cost and extra fiddly boards. Though I never tried it, my plan was using the bigger units for this effect.
If you guys are introducing threaded turns, then maybe it would be fair to use the oil for something other than paying for actions. I do think that paying oil for moving armies or navies.
Also, having some level of infrastructure would be great, like using your railroad cards to be able to make strategic movement around your territory, population cards should give you some bonus: discounted infantry, free infantry unit or some other production bonus. Maybe the new economic system is completely different, but the need to trade to improve your production should be kept, but Ia lways felt that you should be able to tweak a bit more your economy, like the use of cards for different effects, as used done with oil.
And trading, it was cool that you needed to be connected to your trading artner, but it was too instantaneous, it would be great to have tades that work only as long as you have a trading route. For example, I one suggested (but got refused) to instead of trading cards, just mark the card with the color of the recieving player (with an infantry unit) and as soon as the trade rout was cut, the card returns to the original controlling player. This variant had problems, but something simple could be doable.
Make strategic bombing/warfare more usable? Please! Such a cool option just to never be used?
Well, this is long enough already, I really love Attack! I would love a deluxe edition, even if I already own the orginal plus expansion.
And as for playtesting? I would love to participate!
-
-
WOW!
Thanks for all the interest and support.
1st off, let me say that I am not sure if the components will be sold seperatly, but the rules should be available on the Eagle site. (sorry, but its sprues again!) I will try my best to push for extra components to be sold on the website. no promises. not my call.
We are moving away from the governments, and will introduce a new technology/upgrading system to the fold.
With threaded turns, actions will be limited to 3 per turn (effectivly eliminating oil reserves) alternating between players. This should speed things up a bit.
12 turns will be the maximum, or long game. Event cards will be used to mix things up.
I love the idea of "secret missions!"
We are considering doing expansion decks of cards in the future. perhaps secret missions could be the first.
The main goal of the deluxe set is to clean up the rules, introduce some new elements, streamline the game a bit, and get a system in place that works well for everyone.
The people I have met over the years loved this game, but we all had 1 thing in common: we all had to tweek the rules a bit. Along the way, we all had great ideas to make it better, but I never felt like anyone ever "fixed" the basics. I hope Mike and I have done so, and can continue to do so.
March 3rd is the date we are shooting for to kick off playtesting.
Thanks for the emails to everyone who has responded. I will be putting together an email list and sending the rules out then.
Sean
-
Chris Valk
Spain
Stay, Antonio!
-
Sean:
Wow! That's an ambitious redesign, and it sounds very exciting.
At first glance, I'd say the revised economic system (especially assigned economic values for each space) and the naval rules will be major improvements. And having the entire game in a single package is a wise decision. The only thing I'm leery of is removing/diluting the government mechanic, as that was always one of my favorite parts in terms of flavor (but I can understand your decision in light of balance issues).
I would definitely be interested in playtesting. Thanks for reaching out to the player community!
Chris
-
Chris Valk
Spain
Stay, Antonio!
-
Ramito wrote: it would be great to have tades that work only as long as you have a trading route. For example, I one suggested (but got refused) to instead of trading cards, just mark the card with the color of the recieving player (with an infantry unit) and as soon as the trade rout was cut, the card returns to the original controlling player. This variant had problems, but something simple could be doable.
I second that. In fact, I came up with the same house rule (you're right, it was a little too fiddly). Were we separated at birth?
-
Scott Randolph
United States
Arvada
Colorado
-
Sean and all concerned:
I have a ten person game group that meets every 4-6 weeks. We have played Attack! The Expansion 10 times now. All games, except 1, have been 4-6 players. Every time where we debate switching to a new game, we change our minds and play Attack! again, because it is an awesome game.
This is one of the most under-recognized, under-appreciated games I know of. We think it is terrific. If anyone has the time, please read my "World Conquest" & "Attack Rules Variations" posts. Please comment if you have the time (and please be sure your time in editorial interferes with work and other drone-like responsibilities, lol). My group has declined all of my alternate rules, and always returns to the game the way it is, with very, very minor tweeks.
Contrary to what seems like the popular consensus, the Democracy CAN win, and has won twice in our group. I personally won as the Democracy in a five-player full-on game in Jan'08. The more I have suggested tweeks and changes, then the more we play, the fewer house rules we have ever actually made or used!!
Our actual "House Rules" are tiny:
1. Tech Development, if successful, player draws two cards, chooses 1, discards the other.
2. The "Fatal Four" Political Action cards may only be used once per game: Revolt, Embargo, Tech Stealing (which we altered to "Copy" - not steal, so that BOTH players now have that tech advantage), and Assassination (I think, I'm not at home right now, so this is from memory)
3. For every player above 4, the Eagle Card total to end the game goes up by one; 5 players = 14, 6 players = 15, etc.
4. Trade: either broker, or direct trade, or both, meaning that the player who commits to the "Trade" action, and pays the oil, may trade directly, and may also "broker" trade between any other two, or three, etc players, and has the discretionary power to allow, or deny such trade(s).
5. Turn time limit: we have a golden (painted) 2 1/2 inch block of wood that says "first player in round," with a silver (painted) bishop-looking (chess) piece that says "My Turn" on it. When you get the "My Turn" piece passed to you, you have 20 minutes to start your last action.
Comments and Suggestions:
A. Marking game board territories with an economic value is excellent, as long as you don't lose the "alternate universe / alternate history" flavor to the game, which we think is terrific!! Try producing cardboard squares with text corresponding to the economic value and type on the Economic cards, so that they can be mixed up and placed randomly around the game map board every game, making every game unique. Don't turn this into A&A please with the same static start every time!
B. Don't take out Oil, it's one of the most attractive and brilliantly innovative aspects of the game, and don't force everyone to just three actions per turn. Threaded turns is an OK concept, we aren't that excited about it, we have no problem with downtime at all...there's too much negotiating and discussion going on, and when it's your turn you have to have your crap together and be ready to roll! How about threaded turns, where if players have the oil, and wish to commit, they keep performing actions until they can't, or don't want to? Players could have "Action Cards" where they commit to their first three secretly, then all players turn each over one at a time, per threaded action? But let players go beyond 3 actions if they have the "Will and the Oil."
C. Our group uses EVERY element of the game, ALL of the time; trade routes, trading, commerce raiding, strategic bombing, all of it. The only problem with Strategic Bombing is the cost of the air units, and it is generally ineffective, does very little. Commerce Raiding is risky for the cost, better to concentrate ones' fleet, and spend oil and cash on politics, trade, bulding up your military, and other actions. But both are interesting aspects of the game!
D. Time: count on 1 hour per player, 5 player game takes 5 hours, etc. This is NOT a problem for us.
-
Dan
Canada
Alberta
Yeah... I see what you did there.
-
Thanks for contacting me.
Honestly, I LOVE Attack!, but it's only really interesting when I can get 4-5 people interested. I am starting up a game club in my new town, so I plan to pull this out and convert some people.
I still DO like Axis & Allies, but it's nice to play Attack! when you want to write the history as well.
House Rules"
- Threaded turns rock!
Really enjoy Twilight Imp. 3rd Ed. because of it. The players feel like they are interacting all the time. Go for it!
- Actually I took my cards for Naval Battles and we still use them to declare battles. (Not with the actual bits on the board.)
However, I would have a SERIOUS problem resisting specialty dice... As long as the rules work and mimic reality well enough.
Comments and Suggestions:
- Minimum Economy
Actually, I DO like using oil to represent initiative and to pay for actions. It makes it a VERY important resource, just as it it in the time period of the game. However, each player should have a minimum oil production. They get it somehow.
Perhaps even a minimum, emergency measures, economic strenght. Just so they are not totally hosed with a string of bad luck.
- Government Alignments (Fascist, Communist, Democratic, Monarchist.)
I was dissapointed to see that you were headed away from alignments.
If I want a pure combat game, I'd play A&A. Honestly.
What's the point of Attack! without a political step? And I do like Role-Playing a Government type.
However, I DO like the idea of secret agendas. (Again, like T.I. 3rd.)
So...
How about secret agendas for each player, that mimic certain government types? I mean, if a player got the agenda. "take and hold 10 territories by force" wouldn't it mimic being Fascist anyway? (Usually, in T.I. 3rd, you can more or less tell what a person's secret agenda is...)
"Strength of Arms"? "Isolationist"?, "Meddler"?
- Territory Markers for Resources
To be honest, I would be happy with a token that just said "Oil" or "Rail". When taken by another player, you get to steal a resource of that type, not that exact card, from his/her hand.
I know, some of you are saying that's not "logical", but I like the slight uncertainty of it. Yes, you should guard your oilfields, but...
Lots of other factors come in during war. Russia moved it's important factories back and burned what it could not drag, the German economy was shattered bricks when the Allies rolled in, Iraq set the oil fields on fire, etc.
And no, I don't want "scorched Earth rules" at least in my games.
K.I.S.S..
Just my two cents. PM me the hate, later. 
-
-
Gents,
Great stuff here! I am starting to get some emails about keeping oil. We are still on the fence. The Tech rules are changing things up a bit, and we really liked sticking with 3 actions a turn. We felt oil is too random.
Here is a proposed idea...
What if we made "oil field" tokens (like scott sugested) and randomly distribute them face down on the board. If during your global conquest you capture a region with one, flip it (it stays out for all to see) and you can collect oil certs every turn based on your oil production.
after the threaded turns (3 actions) a 4th threaded round is offered and can be accepted by those willing to spend oil (like the original)
this would keep our plans on track, and keep an element alot of you guys really like. It would also introduce another point of contention : people whould be gunning to take over your oil fields!
Government "goals" could be added I suppose. We where steering aaway from them, but cards or "chits" with "missions" on them might be good.
I am kinda brainstorming here, guys... but this is good. My goal is to come at Mr. Selinker with all the ideas I can during the final revision stage.
Like I have said before, we have a great idea in place, with alot of effort put in. I truly believe the core changes are for the better. But I also want to hear every possible good idea out there to help better the system.
So far, I must say THANK YOU ALL so much for the great posts, emails, and enthusiasim so far!
We are 1 week away from final tweeks, and Playtesting is almost here!
I am not sure if I posted it yet, but the idea behind naval dice is that the system would mimic the land combat system, with some perks
example- Carriers would get to throw a "red" die with their naval die for air support. (if they get a plane on a red die, they score a hit)
More to come, but I wanted to wet your whisles a bit...
-
-
I would like to ask the following questions
Please post or email me opinions:
1: keep oil for extra actions in some form? yes or no
2: keep governments in some way shape or form? yes or no
3: would random oil field tokens be a nice change? y or n
4: goals instead of govenments?
5: end game by number of turns?
6: end game by vp total?
7: end game by secret goal?
8: short, medium, and long game options in the rulebook?
9: advanced game and basic game in the rules?
10: future expansion "decks" of cards with scenarios, new goals, missions, ect.?
Thanks guys!
Sean
-
-
Quick production note:
I got a quote to do extra dice, rulebooks and cards, so the "pimp my game" option a few of you spoke of is looking good. (still not the final word, but looking good)
I am pretty sure the "bits" would only be available through the eagle website in their "parts store" but its a start.
I will let you know if a formal "kit" will be available, but for most of you diehard owners of both additions, breath a little easier!
Sean
-
Simon Lundström
Sweden
Örbyhus
Now who are these five?
Come, come, all children who love fairy tales.
-
Sounds fabulous. All this talk makes me want to get this game to the table again soon!
-
The Grouch
United States
Tucson
Arizona
-
LaggingEdge wrote: The only thing I'm leery of is removing/diluting the government mechanic, as that was always one of my favorite parts in terms of flavor (but I can understand your decision in light of balance issues).
I second this. The government mechanic is one of the things that greatly distinguishes Attack! from Axis and Allies. I think if the Political Actions and cards were overhauled, the existing government mechanic would be even more of an asset.
SFRR wrote: A....Try producing cardboard squares with text corresponding to the economic value and type on the Economic cards, so that they can be mixed up and placed randomly around the game map board every game, making every game unique. Don't turn this into A&A please with the same static start every time!
B. Don't take out Oil, it's one of the most attractive and brilliantly innovative aspects of the game, and don't force everyone to just three actions per turn....
Concur, with qualifications (see below). In fact, there's already a fan-designed set of counters here at the Geek that turns the economic cards into chits for just that purpose.
onekccs wrote: I would like to ask the following questions
1: keep oil for extra actions in some form? yes or no
2: keep governments in some way shape or form? yes or no
3: would random oil field tokens be a nice change? y or n
4: goals instead of govenments?
5: end game by number of turns?
6: end game by vp total?
7: end game by secret goal?
8: short, medium, and long game options in the rulebook?
9: advanced game and basic game in the rules?
10: future expansion "decks" of cards with scenarios, new goals, missions, ect.?
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Depends on implementation/game effect
4. Not INSTEAD. Perhaps in addition. Instead is too much like "Secret Mission Risk"
5, 6, 7. Yes, all are good options and are likely intertwined with...
8. Sure.
9. Maybe not.
10. Maybe so. Would depend on what was in them.
With regards to economics, the "set" mechanic - especially "trade route" as a wild card is a very clever feature of the original game. Losing a card of your choice when you lose a territory seemed somewhat hokey, though, which is why I think so many have suggested chits as an alternative. I'm concerned this creates a new problem in exchange for the one it solves, which is this: it's obvious that mineral and oil resources would be fixed in a location and that - being non-renewable - what a territory starts with is all there is for the game. The problem I see is with "infrastructure" commodities like manufacturing and railroads. All major poweres certainly built new factories during the course of WWII, which is one mechanic where Axis & Allies is actually more realistic than Attack!.
So perhaps the solution might be to have a two-tiered economic system. Resource cards like the current economic cards and infrastucture, which teritories would start with but which could also be built up through the game. Railroads, ports and factories would be the chief infrastructure elements and would contribute to troop movement, building land units beyond infantry and building naval units respectively. It would be infrastructure that would be affected by strategic bombing.
The resource chits would be population, oil, metals with trade routes as a wild card as in the original game. Factories and railroads could be replaced with rubber and crops - resources traditionally rationed during
WWII, just as petroleum was.
Something to think about. I don't think it would significantly increase the complexity of the game beyond what it is now, but it would certainly contribute to realism.
-
The Grouch
United States
Tucson
Arizona
-
Some further food for thought:
COMPONENTS
If you are not using the same sculpts, then could you please get away from the slightly larger pieces standing for five units? They really are not that easy to distinguish visibly. Consider mini-plastic poker chips (c.f. Axis & Allies).
Please, please, please offer the black and white units again. I never managed to get the black before they went out of stock. I love that Attack! with expansion is big enough to accomodate up to eight players.
Oil certificates - what about black plastic or wooden barrels to make them more distinctve from the rest of the money?
FORMS OF GOVERNMENT VS. POLITICAL/DIPLOMATIC ACTIONS
Consider the historic difficulties FDR had getting the US to overcome its adherence to the Neutrality Laws to help the UK. Consider the diificulty most of the UK had in initially accepting the claims of Churchill, et al, that Hitler was dangerous. The UK lagged Germany in military production and Chamberlain appeased him while Churchill and his ilk remained marginalized or ousted from British politics till it was almost too late. Public opinion matters in a democracy and will fetter what a democracy can do. Once that public opinion is roused to war, though, there should be strengths a democratic player can draw from it that more totalitarian forms of governemnt (e.g. Facist, Communist) can not.
Consider, too, that the more totalitarian forms of government could only make so much "easy" progress through intimidation before world opinion caught up to what bullies they were and wouldn't stand for any more. And maybe that's the real key to a mechanic. Maybe a "world opinion" track which applies a modifier to diplomatic/political actions, with each player/nation having a marker on it. As players perform aggressive diplomatic/political actions, they should move further down the track making it harder for them to continue to succeed at such plays, but relatively easier for the countries which "play nice" to succeed diplomatically/politically. This may bring back some balance for folks who say democracies can't win.
This may be one for the advanced rules.
-
Dan
Canada
Alberta
Yeah... I see what you did there.
-
bill_andel wrote:
Consider, too, that the more totalitarian forms of government could only make so much "easy" progress through intimidation before world opinion caught up to what bullies they were and wouldn't stand for any more. And maybe that's the real key to a mechanic. Maybe a "world opinion" track which applies a modifier to diplomatic/political actions, with each player/nation having a marker on it. As players perform aggressive diplomatic/political actions, they should move further down the track making it harder for them to continue to succeed at such plays, but relatively easier for the countries which "play nice" to succeed diplomatically/politically. This may bring back some balance for folks who say democracies can't win.
This may be one for the advanced rules.
Oh, that's nice....
-
Scott Randolph
United States
Arvada
Colorado
-
onekccs wrote: I would like to ask the following questions
Please post or email me opinions:
1: keep oil for extra actions in some form? yes or no
2: keep governments in some way shape or form? yes or no
3: would random oil field tokens be a nice change? y or n
4: goals instead of govenments?
5: end game by number of turns?
6: end game by vp total?
7: end game by secret goal?
8: short, medium, and long game options in the rulebook?
9: advanced game and basic game in the rules?
10: future expansion "decks" of cards with scenarios, new goals, missions, ect.?
Thanks guys!
Sean
1. YES - Keep Oil, give all players an "oil derrick" game piece in their player color, just like the capital produces $10PP's, the "oil derrick" produces [3] OC's ("oil certificates"), and is placed on the game map board, and can be taken just like the capital, but cannot be placed in the same territoty as the capital at initial set-up. Three OC's will allow all players to participate in threaded actions (1) & (2) on every turn irrespective of poor card draw with oil economic cards.
2. YES - Keep government types, makes the game different, unusual and captivating
3. YES - I suggest face down, randomly placed chits/tokens that match the economic values on the economic cards, and are turned face up at the start of the game, during initial set-up after government types are randomly selected.
4. YES - goals for secret, specified extra victory points, with cards by government type
5. NO - I like the game the way it is here, number of eagle cards, one player eliminated, stops the game and victory points are then tallied.
6. Maybe - ending the game when one player reaches a certain number of victory points, is very interesting, I could be persuaded, as long as it is added as a 3rd way to end the game in addition to the other current two.
7. NO
8. NO
9. Either way, good for others possibly, no big deal for my group
10. Good business decision from a product marketing revenue viewpoint, this is more of a franchise, revenue maximization question, could be OK
-
-
Fellow Attackers!
Thanks for the great feeback again!
One of the fundimanetal changes in the new system is the way cards/territories will be used. This makes some of your ideas tough to incorperate, but I think there is some nice stuff here.
Let me explain the new system:
Each area on the gameboard that you control is worth 3 pp. Your capital is worth 10 pp.
Instead of the old, draw a random card, and try and make a set, you will collect a flat amount of pp. When you invade a neutral, you will roll dice, and the types of units rolled, will be what you face. The number of dice will increase as turns go by.
The cards will work as a type of technology and Victory point system.
Building level 1 in any of the 4 areas will allow you to do certain things. Upgrading each level will improve your ranges, and types of builds.
We originally went away from governments because they can be inballanced. Some folks say one is easy to win with, others difficult, ect. I always liked them, and maybe we need to revisit them. I will mention it, and see if we can playtest some new ideas. (remember, government rules are in attack expansion, and just because we do this deluxe version does not mean the old gov. rules could not be used...)
I really do apreciate all the opinions you guys have offered, and will promise this: the new game will have some nice, new things. Remember, we loved this game the way it was, and now we want to take it to a different level/direction while keeping the foundation that made it great. I too was one of those guys who did not want Axis and Allies to change, or Risk, but once I relized that I tried them, I LOVED the new revisions of those lines, and I hope we can all capture that feeling for the Deluxe version of Attack!
Sean
-
nod sleepyland
United States
Hawaii
-
1: keep oil for extra actions in some form? yes
2: keep governments in some way shape or form? yes
3: would random oil field tokens be a nice change? yes (or something similar)
4: goals instead of govenments? no (also is fine)
5: end game by number of turns? no
6: end game by vp total? no
7: end game by secret goal? yes
8: short, medium, and long game options in the rulebook? yes
9: advanced game and basic game in the rules? yes
10: future expansion "decks" of cards with scenarios, new goals, missions, ect.? yes
Play up your strengths: very workable game with a variety of rules. Anyone can play this one, but it does take a little more strategy to get better at it. The combat dice are great, and I look forward to a more interesting naval combat.
Government types make for a very fun game. You could add more if you could brainstorm up some, or just work at making more content for the ones you currently have. Having specialized goals for each nation is fun, but generic goals for everyone is just fine as well.
Tech entering the game has always been a problem in our games; I look forward to the tech tree. Too often people found they "wasted" resources in getting a tech they didn't want, or just failed at getting tech at all. We ended up just giving everyone one random tech to begin. Made the game a little more interesting.
Having a unique game every game is the most compelling thing that returns us to your game. Making stationary economic resources will certainly diminish this.
All in all, great game: keep up the good work. Look forward to the Deluxe version.
-
Chris Valk
Spain
Stay, Antonio!
-
1: keep oil for extra actions in some form? Yes – PP’s for unit purchases and oil for actions
2: keep governments in some way shape or form? Yes (see below)
3: would random oil field tokens be a nice change? Yes, a must if economic resources removed. Assign different values to these tokens.
4: goals instead of govenments? Qualified yes, see below
5: end game by number of turns? No
6: end game by vp total? Yes
7: end game by secret goal? Not exactly – secret goals could add VP’s
8: short, medium, and long game options in the rulebook? Yes
9: advanced game and basic game in the rules? Yes
10: future expansion "decks" of cards with scenarios, new goals, missions, ect.? Heck, yeah
I also agree with the previous post in favor of discarding the larger playing pieces and implementing Axis & Allies-type chips.
onekccs wrote: Each area on the gameboard that you control is worth 3 pp. Your capital is worth 10 pp...Instead of the old, draw a random card, and try and make a set, you will collect a flat amount of pp...
Streamlining economics by eliminating resource types and assigning 3 PP per space will work only if oil remains. This is necessary to truly capture the flavor of the WWII era (Hitler's courting of Romania for the Ploesti oil fields, his drive to capture the Caucasus, Japan deciding to go to war with the US after Roosevelt cut off the oil supply, etc). And it might be a good idea to assign different values to the random oil tokens.
Removing resources would mean the removal of the random trade route mechanism of the original Attack!, which never quite worked for me, anyway. However, even if individual resources are eliminated from the game, trade routes should be included in some form to capture the spirit of the era. Think about the resources Germany expended in both World Wars to keep lines of communication open to the weaker members of their alliance (“shackled to a corpse,” as one WWI German politician put it), or the lengths Britain had to go to protect Suez and the lifeline to India. How about this: allow a given territory’s PP’s and oil to be counted only if it can trace a line of supply to a player’s capital. And allow placement of reinforcements only in territories that can do the same. This rule would simulate the challenge WWII-era powers faced in holding together their alliances and far-flung dominions, and it would drive offensive and defensive military strategy along historically valid lines.
onekccs wrote: When you invade a neutral, you will roll dice, and the types of units rolled, will be what you face. The number of dice will increase as turns go by.
Good idea. Some thoughts on minor neutrals and political blitzing:
Allow PP’s (from active and inactive players) to influence/overturn political blitz die rolls. Imagine the bidding wars for oil-rich minors...
If minor neutrals will no longer be assigned government types, they could have three statuses: neutral, allied, and owned. There would need to be two types of political blitz to implement this, however (political blitz and political coup?).
--All minors start the game as neutral.
--Allied minors, taken by political blitz, are marked with an infantry unit of your color. They do not contribute PP’s but serve to block political blitzing by your enemies (think Britain and Poland).
--Owned minors, taken by political coup, are indicated by placement of a player token in addition to infantry, contribute PP’s and allow free movement of your units.
onekccs wrote: We originally went away from governments because they can be inballanced. Some folks say one is easy to win with, others difficult, ect. I always liked them, and maybe we need to revisit them.
Instead of governments types, have players portray fictionalized versions of WWII leaders/nations/ideologies. As in Sid Meier’s Civ III & IV/Age of Empires computer games, give each nation improved special abilities (cheaper techs, units, etc). Or, as in Cosmic Encounter, allow them to flout the rules in some fashion. This type of mechanism would work well with the new tech tree. For example:
--The Fascist could pay less for tanks; start with blitz tech; on a successful political coup (see above), would roll the combat dice to determine allied forces rather than simply place one infantry.
--The Communist could pay less for infantry (the human wave), be able to make a political blitz in enemy-held territories (recruit partisans), have improved production tech.
--The Warlord (eg, WWII-era Japanese) could be allowed Berserk attacks that roll double dice, have advantages in naval/air tech, etc.
--The Democracy (US) could have diplomatic and production advantages.
--The Monarchy (Britain) could excel in research and espionage and pay less for certain naval units.
Just some ideas; there could be many more variations. This mechanism could preserve the unique role-playing aspect governments provided in the original Attack!, while at the same time would allow a little more flexibility and nuance to address balance issues. History could fit the game system rather than vice-versa. Players could also be assigned unique victory conditions as in the original game.
Have all this info on individual player mats that could also include tracks for VP's, oil, and PP’s. Would also work with the expansion model (a future expansion, for example, could include player mats representing historical WWII leaders/nations).
Regarding victory conditions, a victory-point system would work well with the above and give players flexibility in setting their own time limit. Like Railroad Tycoon, there could be Leader cards with individual goals that would net extra points. The Democracy, for example, could have several different Leader cards with various goals such as:
--Arsenal of Democracy (reach a certain production/tech level before a certain turn)
--Make the World Safe for Democracy (completely surround an aggressor nation with allied minor countries—see above)
--Unconditional Surrender (completely eliminate an aggressor nation)
Only one card would be drawn per game. Goals would be tailored to specific government types, change from game to game, and be secret from other players. This would also work well for expansions.
onekccs wrote: I really do apreciate all the opinions you guys have offered...
The opportunity to contribute ideas is likewise very much appreciated. Can't wait to see what you guys come up with!
Edited for spelling.
-
-
Round 1 of playtesting has begun!
If you (or your group) would like to participate, please post in this thread, and geekmail me your email address.
We are looking for groups that have both attack, and the expansion right now.
If your group only has attack, and has never played the game with expansion, we want you as well, but in a seperate play group.
Sean
P.s...I will be circulating rules to playtest groups this week.
-
Chris Valk
Spain
Stay, Antonio!
-
Sean: Please sign me up; I own the base game and the expansion. Geekmail on the way....Attaaaaaack!!!
-
|
|
