Video

Global War 1936.

@@-jinx thx man

For editing video? VSDC. It's not the best, but it's okay.

Hi Diadochi! Well, there are plenty of excellent games out there, some employ a card mechanic. One of them is Skythe which used a combo of allocating points and cards. A purer form is probably Game of Thrones. Lastly a worthwhile mention I Runewars, which is pretty cool. Personally, I'm not a huge fan. I enjoy strategy games that use dice as a randomness generator. I prefer dice to equally random generators like spinners. Card based combat mechanics can be fun, but the Tactile enjoyment of dice. The physical violence of dice rolling in a tray, and the impression of complete randomness in the roll (instead of concerns of a properly shuffled randomizer deck), I really enjoy dice. But all that being said, I'm sure there are some excellent card based combat games I would enjoy too. It boils down to personal preference. What about you? What are your thoughts Diadochi?

@@-jinx I'm very appreciative of your response! At the moment i'm in the initial stages of play-testing my Strategy board game, which wont include any dice, so both your feedback and videos are great help to understand an alternative perspective to the current design. Personally i enjoy the excitement of dice in D&D and Arkham horror games, but prefer strategy games with only minor elements of randomness, so i could execute my 'armchair-general' fantasies. So instead of dice, im incorporating 3 different victory conditions in my game which relay on financial and political elements beside the power of military force (along with strategic cards), in hopes that it will suffice as replay-ability factor. Therefore, i would wonder if you and other like-minded gamers are still a viable audience for such game; And alternatively if you would consider Digi-testing the game or reviewing it in the future.

@Diadochi-rh6cn I'd happily give your game a try at some point! I like the idea of alternative victory conditions of Political or Financial. Dice can be a personal preference choice, but I think there should be a little randomness, otherwise it devolves to a math game.

I can't recall, Mad Man Dan's version, I'm pretty certain

@@-jinx thanks! The other version I have seen are with the roundels instead of flags

Not quite correct. I had 72 IPP. I used 73 IPP, but the discount for the ship brings it to 72 IPP.

@@-jinx Oh ok i thought i saw your marker say 73 PP. and you say you used 72. i see now, i just didnt want you to cheat yourself.

From a board game called "Victory II" 😉

Dang, okay I'll re-upload later with boosted audio. Thanks for telling me

Dang! You are absolutely right, I misread that. All kinds of mistakes on my turn, goodness. Well thank you!

Yes I did after the video! Thanks!

Dude I wish I was making it up. In the last week of February I worked 98 hours in 7 days. It's the Oil & Gas industry in Canada. Some of the roads are winter access only, so when winter hits we have a lot of the services work crazy busy, but when things thaw out, we tend to slow down a bit too, down to 30 to 50 hours a week depending on price of Oil that year.

Haha! I would love too! Hopefully I can someday. I would love to be able to buy my family a little countryside acreage so my little kiddies can run around and have adventures in the woods. So I'll sacrifice for now, and maybe a good job will come up were i can provide for family, and not work as much. Thank you for your thoughts though. 😊

I'll have to review what I did, but it sounds like I may have made a mistake. You can upgrade up to two Militia per turn, and you can place a Militia in a territory, up to the IPP value. In regards to the aircraft, because I have the Long Range Aircraft tech (+1 move) and was leaving from an airbase (+1 move), I had enough to get to Istanbul and back to Romania.

They Allies did a great job of rebuilding, the USSR and US both Lend-leased one, and the UK flew one in from Canada.

Nope you are right! Thanks!

Wow thanks man! That's a massive compliment! 😊😊😊

Hmm, good question. It depends what you want from a game. What type of complexity, how much of a WW2 simulation do you want, and what length of game you want to adopt. Games like RISK have only one dice type, one hit type and that's it. Very simple. I've decided to be a bit more complex with my game. If a Battleships attack Destroyers, I want the Destroyers to have a hard time punching through the armor of the battleship with their guns. So my game might be called more realistic in this regard. A game like RISK might make a Battleship worth 10 units and a Destroyer worth 1. But other then that, they are virtually identical except by quantity. My game does have some complexity, but it's easy as Memoir 44 in combat. So, to answer your question! Because I like it that way! 😊

@@-jinx So, the "piercing" result is a common and effective style of attack result in a combat system. The idea is simple, that the attacking value gets blocked by a certain defense value until it goes over it, and then it does damage. My main issue, and maybe this is because I don't really understand how combat occurs and am looking at it through the lens of it happening in a hex and counter scenario, is why every attacker has their own added dice(??) and why certain attacking dice are treated the same while others are not. For example, the anti-air result. Do only certain attacking units (infantry, tanks, air) have the ability to roll an anti-air attack? If they do, do they also not roll an anti-ground attack? This is very complex, but also not realistic. I've never played risk or Axis and Allies, but from my understanding, in AaA, there is basically a combined value of the attackers with modifiers from different counters (minifigures). While the AaA system is not complex, it's also somewhat more realistic (but not by much), since in real life aircraft and tanks do provide a "modifier" to combat in a similar way, even if it is far more complex. If I were designing a game in which the attackers would roll a ton of dice to get hits and suppression on the enemy, I would certainly stick to your idea of piercing for basically all attacks, with aircraft and tanks being able to negate enemy damage in an overlapping manner, similar to an abstracted simulation of real world combined arms. Aircraft should never really be able to be hit by ground forces, unless the defending player decides to throw them away to protect their troops in a direct way, or if the enemy has aircraft of their own. Of course, I have little experience with any game, and certainly no experience with these sorts of minifigure board games. But the issue I see is that a ton of dice can be off-putting to learn. And I also am somewhat of a purist in terms of games using dice which are easy to buy at the store, such as 2 D6. If you have any other videos on your game I'll check it out.